[csw-users] Is ln -s gpg2 gpg ok for pkg-get purposes?

Wyche, George PW George.Wyche at pw.utc.com
Fri Feb 12 17:52:17 CET 2010

Seems like it was blind, stumbling that led to gpg2.
For legacy issues a fine, cheap SunFireV1280 with Solaris10, was
reloaded with 5.8 and I was asked to "put our software on" AHEAD of what
our usual, contract IT, admin does. The contractor rightfully figured
his 10 year standard overlaying of added software was woefully out of

All our Solaris stuff is prohibited from internet connection, so I, one
by one, download CSW packages, correct the names, e.g. sunos -> SunOS.
Then use that place as a repository for pkg-get on other machines.

Having been bothered by that md5 and gpg lack from a few weeks ago when
I was chose to do a general upgrade AND add teTex here, I vowed to set
that stuff up correctly from the start. From the SunFire I did the
pkg-get setup, set url to the repository, pkg-get -i textutils (and
forgot... again... That its *g*md5sum). Next was gpg.
pkg-get -i gpg which complained the package could not be found. Indeed
it was not there, but the pgp2 package was, so I, shrugged and did
pgp2... Only to find that once I was "ready to go" to get down to
business of getting some 200 packages loaded, pkg-get was STILL
complaining about gpg.

I did not (and do not) want to wonder about fighting between gpg and
gpg2 if I should decide to go back, download gpg, and install it for
this purpose. Hence my question. Googling, I saw the reservations that
appeared on the DEVELOPMENT thread last December. I read about gpg2
being "Complete replacement for gpg". Not so complete, huh?

In the absence of an instantaneous reply here in this forum, I went
ahead with the "ln -s gpg2 gpg" and encountered zero problems with these
first 110 packages.

[My gpg on "my" workstation originated a long time ago,
pre-blastwave/openCSW, from "the other guys", so somehow I never
actually needed "pkg-get -i gpg". That's how the narrative in my head is
running at the moment.]

Anyway, thanks and I gotta get back to work.

George Wyche
Austin, TX

-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces+george.wyche=pw.utc.com at lists.opencsw.org
[mailto:users-bounces+george.wyche=pw.utc.com at lists.opencsw.org] On
Behalf Of Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 4:57 AM
To: Questions and discussions
Subject: Re: [csw-users] Is ln -s gpg2 gpg ok for pkg-get purposes?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Wyche, George             PW
<George.Wyche at pw.utc.com> wrote:
> Is ln -s gpg2 gpg ok for pkg-get purposes?
> Or should I go back and download the earlier gpg version package and
> install that?

For pkg-get/pkgutil purposes I think it's okay; in the worst case you
might have trouble verifying signatures made with gpg 1.x.  There's
also an alternatives system in the making, so at some point you'll
have a command line utility to choose between gpg implementations.

Out of curiosity, do you have a reason to use gpg2?  Is it gpg-agent?

users mailing list
users at lists.opencsw.org

More information about the users mailing list