HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1
kuriyama at imgsrc.co.jp
Tue Dec 12 00:47:28 PST 2006
At Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:43:48 -0800,
Doug Barton wrote:
> If this is your plan, it leads me to the next question, which is how
> are you going to handle the fact that GnuPG 2.x does not install a
> binary named "gpg?" Will you install a symlink if gnupg1 is not
> installed? And if so, will it CONFLICT with that port? If we are going
> to suggest to users that 2.x is the default, I think we need to
> provide support for those legacy(?) apps that think gnupg is spelled gpg.
Yes, that's my difficult decision in this upgrade. I understand you
care about existing users not to violate POLA, but I basically choose
this way for new users. :-(
If "gpg" binary consumer is ports-installed one and have explicit
dependency on its Makefile, "portupgrade -R gnupg" will install
security/gnupg *AND* security/gnupg1. But if is is not from ports,
just only users from command line or have implicit dependency (like
mail/mailcrypt which I'm using), only "gpg2" binary is exist after
I have no clue about last problem for now (only pkg-message or
UPDATING). This maybe critical for casual portupgrade users.
> > we should be insanely grateful for more than 8 years
> > of his impeccable gnupg maintainership.
> Having spent a non-zero amount of time working on a gnupg2 port for my
> own use, not to mention the updates of the related ports to get 2.x to
> build, I agree with you that we should be appreciative of Jun's
> efforts, and I hope that he understands that nothing I've said is
> intended in any way to be critical of him or his work.
I appreciate Doug's work of course. This thread is just which option
we choose from possible ways. And mainly caused my lack of
Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama at imgsrc.co.jp> // IMG SRC, Inc.
<kuriyama at FreeBSD.org> // FreeBSD Project
More information about the freebsd-ports