Re: Gnupg recipe fixes

[Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk>]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:25:57 +0000
Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 12:57 +0000, Paul Barker wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 00:55:05 +0000
> > Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm setting up a signed apt repository of .deb packages built
> > > using OpenEmbedded and I've ran into an issue with apt-get on the
> > > target board not being able to find 'gpgv' to verify the
> > > signatures. This is installed as 'gpgv2' in the gnupg recipe.
> > > Therefore I've used update-alternatives to create the appropriate
> > > link.
> > > 
> > 
> > I've re-thought this already. Is update-alternatives the right
> > thing to use here? Maybe not as there isn't anything else that
> > provides gpgv and gnupg_1.* and gnupg_2.* probably can't co-exist
> > on the same install. I could just add a line to do_install_append()
> > to create the gpgv link manually, similar to how the link for gpg
> > is already created. Please let me know which is the better solution
> > here.
> > 
> > I also noticed that gnupg_1.4.7.bb splits gpgv into a separate
> > package but gnupg_2.0.19 doesn't. I could write a patch to modify
> > one of these to match the other if desired?
> 
> I glanced at this earlier and wondered what the alternative provider
> was. If we have no alternative, a symlink is fine.
> 
> I'm open to separate packaging of the utilities if its useful and they
> can use used one without the other. If we'd generally need both, they
> can exist in the same package fine.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 

I'll put a new patch together to add the symlink. Does this warrant
incrementing PR?

Thanks,

-- 
Paul Barker

Email: paul@paulbarker.me.uk
http://www.paulbarker.me.uk