| 1 |
On Sun, 2007-05-27 at 21:02 +0100, Graham Murray wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> writes: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > I would also strongly favor if both gnupg-1 and gnupg-2 could be kept |
| 5 |
> > in different slots. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> And maybe an eselect (or similar) to select whether external programs |
| 8 |
> which call use gpg-1 or gpg-2. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
That's the beauty of both upstream design and reality. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
THERE IS NO NEED FOR ESELECT |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Apps will either use and/or be developed for gnupg-1 or gnupg-2. They |
| 15 |
are different binaries, versioned by upstream. Have different features |
| 16 |
and functionality. Since gnupg-2 is not a full replacement or supports |
| 17 |
all of gnupg-1's features. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Think gtk vs gtk2 or apache vs apache2. We quite commonly have two |
| 20 |
versions of something in tree during the transition period. Why that is |
| 21 |
unacceptable here is beyond me. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Not to mention again, we are limiting choice, and forcing one or the |
| 24 |
other. Which is not a complete solution, and makes our offerings less |
| 25 |
than all other mainstream distros. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 29 |
Gentoo/Java |
Archives