HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

[Doug Barton]

Jun Kuriyama wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm planning to upgrade security/gnupg to 2.0.1.  This upgrade
> includes portrevision bumps to indicate dependency changes.
> 
> I'm testing conditional plist, upgrading procedure by portupgrade.
> But I think it's almost ready to commit.
> 
> If you have further suggestions, please let me know.

Jun,

Thanks for letting us know what you're plans are. I think you know
what I'm going to say next. ;) As I suggested when I wrote to you in
private e-mail some time ago, I think it would be more in line with
the plans that the developers have for GnuPG 2.x to keep the existing
gnupg port dedicated to the 1.x branch, and repo copy gnupg-devel to
gnupg2. Quoting from the README for 2.x:

GnuPG 2.0 is the stable version of GnuPG integrating support for
OpenPGP and S/MIME.  It does not conflict with an installed 1.4
OpenPGP-only version.

Note that there is no binary gpg but a gpg2 so
that this package won't conflict with a GnuPG 1.4 installation. gpg2
behaves just like gpg.

GNUPG 1.4 AND GNUPG 2.0
=======================
GnuPG 2.0 is a newer version of GnuPG with additional support for
S/MIME.  It has a different design philosophy that splits
functionality up into several modules.  Both versions may be installed
simultaneously without any conflict (gpg is called gpg2 in GnuPG 2).
In fact, the gpg version from GnuPG 1.4 is able to make use of the
gpg-agent as included in GnuPG 2 and allows for seamless passphrase
caching.  The advantage of GnuPG 1.4 is its smaller size and no
dependency on other modules at run and build time.
</quote>

Further, in discussion on the gnupg-users list the developers have
clearly stated that they will continue working on at least the 1.4.x
branch of GnuPG for the foreseeable future.

Therefore I think it would be more in line with the development goals
for the GnuPG project, and less confusing for new users coming to
FreeBSD from other platforms, to adopt the naming scheme that I
proposed, although not necessarily the exact patches I sent you to
implement it.

If you choose not to go that direction, I would be interested in
hearing your reasoning.

Thanks,

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection