[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gnupg-devel
Subject:    Re: GPG_NAME vs. --gpg2-is-gpg vs. documentation vs. installation
From:       Werner Koch <wk () gnupg ! org>
Date:       2016-04-05 9:29:41
Message-ID: 874mbg2yka.fsf () wheatstone ! g10code ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:58, dkg@fifthhorseman.net said:

> Thanks! I've just sent a series of three patches that start down this
> path.

Thanks. However, I took a different approach which should yield the same
result.  Now GnuPg builds binaries gpg and gpgv and onlys installs them
as gpg2/gpgv2.  This has the advantage that eventually we can make
--enable-gpg2-is-gpg the default without chnaging anything else in the
source (e.g. the tests).  Thus in the gnupg build tree gpg is now always
called gpg.

> Ideally, they would affect the names and the content of the generated
> manpages and info documentation as well -- for the experimental debian

Will come soon.

> try to produce a similar approach for the "classic" branch: something
> like ./configure --enable-gpg1-is-gpg (it would default to "yes" for

Yep.  In this case I would suggest to rename gpg.c to gpg1.c and use
your install-hook to rename gpg1 to gpg in the target directory.  We
also need to rename the man page.

> Does that seem like a sensible approach?

Yes.  


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
Gnupg-devel@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]