[Nix-dev] Re: [Nix-commits] SVN commit: nix - 21192 - urkud - in nixpkgs/branches/mass-update-01/pkgs: development/libraries/gpgme tools/security tools/security/gnupg tools/security/gnupg1 tools/security/gnupg2 top-level

[Michael Raskin]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/21/2010 02:32 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I think we shouldn’t make that symlink, because it’s a decision up to
> the GnuPG developers and there must be a good reason why they didn’t do
> it.

The obvious reason not to make such symbolic links is to allow easier
simultaneous installation of GnuPG 1 and GnuPG 2. If you have a package
that cannot use GnuPG 2, lack of such symlinks makes your life easier.
In Nix this package will probably just get GnuPG 1 privately with no
need to ever have GnuPG 1 and GnuPG 2 in PATH at once.

On the other hand, if we want to replace "obsolete" GnuPG 1 with GnuPG 2
(or try doing this), it is easier to do with such a symlink in place.

> How about removing these and optionally submitting the suggestion
> upstream?

Asking upstream is a good idea; removing the symlinks immediately is
probably not.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLzn41AAoJEE6tnN0aWvw3ouIIAIAEJ7SVx4JzMjQ4VGgepwM1
QyYer2DgUPKB/1imHkAJyw+Xp/uLu/Paku0rfRpF07+7L+ln2F1z53I/aIew8re5
pYEyEcIT99eacU0q1ovyjZMpCm2uiZM3S3VjG2HAgWic/G6p5qgAQoUcnj/z6p+Y
PosHCxTTgGPxw6NJW2KZGaLK/PIj9A3/44Gg+3wMqo0kOgFJCl0lgd+2OCFTQnEr
YWpursUFNRdwFErA/XTI+uqsv4YruRDlviDNyN9LldEeq2E4V5fLXoIAIvBYH+oO
ahnA7uUEqU8u1PrtHZpu9hBeOE90WuStmnpsNwqstT2B6ACDgI2FPAM9gVm75fM=
=qiIH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----