HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

[Chris]

On 19/12/06, martinko <gamato at users.sf.net> wrote:
> Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-Dec-11 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?"
> >
> > As an end user, I see this as a real issue.  If I upgrade a port,
> > I expect the upgraded port to have a similar user interface.  From
> > the comments in this thread, it seems that there are significant
> > changes between gnupg 1.x and gnupg 2.x.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Keep in mind that for a significant number of people, gpg is
> > effectively embedded in their MUA or other tools so a UI change is a
> > real PITA.  In my case, about the only time I actually use gpg
> > directly is when I need to edit a key.  The rest of the time, I
> > rely on a pile of commands embedded in my .muttrc
> >
> > I would prefer to see gnupg 2.x introduced as security/gnupg2
> >
>
> I concur.
>
> M.
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>

looks like this upgrade has borked up or is this normal to happen?

portupgrade upgrades gnupg to 2.x over 1.x, then sees spamassassin
needs updating which depends on gnupg, spamassassin has 1.x as a
deoendency not 2.x and then reinstalls gnupg 1.x meaning I now see
this in pkg_info.

gnupg-1.4.6         The GNU Privacy Guard
gnupg-2.0.1         The GNU Privacy Guard

is this normal and files dont conflict? if no then why was 2.x used as
a upgrade over 1.x? instead of a gnupg2 port.

Chris