Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 08:43:30AM -0600, Tim Zingelman wrote: >> Is the need for gnupg 1.x only for the script pkg-vuln-update.sh ? >> If so I added this patch locally and have used the script a couple of times >> since with no complaints... > > I've converted the pkgsrc-security scripts to use GPG2. > > So now we can talk about renaming the packages/tools ;) I'm also in the avoiding rename camp. What does upstream say about best practices? I recall that they are going to add a feature to gnupg-1.4.x to install it as gpg1. Until then, I don't think we should change gnupg2-2.x to install as gpg. I think it's great if we can remove the need for people who don't actually want gnupg 1 to install it. But I don't see the win in immediate renaming, as I would expect more than half already point to gpg2.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature