[Nix-dev] Re: 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

[Yury G. Kudryashov]

Michael Raskin wrote:

> -----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,
Any example?
> 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.
That was my intention. Other solution would be to create "gnupg1compat 
package that just contains two symlinks. In this case the user will be able 
to choose between GnuPG 1 and GnuPG 2 with 1.x compatibility.
>> How about removing these and optionally submitting the suggestion
>> upstream?
> Asking upstream is a good idea; removing the symlinks immediately is
> probably not.
First, I'll look what other distros do. Will write about this later.