[arch-dev-public] Upgrading gnupg to 2.0 branch, removing gnupg2

[Allan McRae]

On 16/03/12 17:21, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> On FS [1], Tom suggested to make gpgme depend on just one of gnupg and
> gnupg2, and I further argued that we do not need two versions of gnupg
> in our repos.
> 
> I propose to:
> - Upgrade gnupg to upstream latest stable, that is version 2.0.
> - Symlink /usr/bin/gpg to /usr/bin/gpg2 for backward compatibility.
> - Remove the gnupg2 package from our repos.
> 
> See [2] for an updated gnupg PKGBUILD.
> 
> I have been running these changes on my system for months with no issue.
> There have been rumors of problems [3], but as far I can tell it's FUD:
> nobody ever reported a concrete issue.
> 
> I'm bringing this up here at Andreas' request: any opinions?
> 
> [1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/28931
> [2] http://paste.xinu.at/Gji/
> [3] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22110


I would much prefer dropping gnupg2 as a dependency of gpgme.

It would remove at least the following packages from [core]:
  dirmngr
  libassuan
  libgpg-error
  libksba
  pinentry
  pth


>From the gpg download page:

"Please read the NEWS file for a more complete list. 1.4.12 is the
stable version of GnuPG. (2.0.18 is the unstable development version)."

So we would be making our package manager rely on something that
upstream considers an _unstable development version_.   That just seems
stupid even for a bleeding edge distro.


Now...  has anyone proposing this actually done the work and noted which
configure options get disabled when building gpgme against only one of
gnupg or gnupg2.  I remember there was differences when I was looking
into this for the same request made back in 2010
(https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22110).  I can not remember the
results, but I remember there was a difference.

Allan