[OE-core] Gnupg recipe fixes

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 13:32 +0000, Paul Barker wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:25:57 +0000
> Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at 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 at 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?

In the old scheme of things this was needed but is no longer required
since we have the PR server and checksums for the tasks which change
when details like this change.

Cheers,

Richard