HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

[Jun Kuriyama]

At Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:15:59 -0800,
Doug Barton wrote:
> 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.

At first, thank you for your helping to upgrade our gnupg world to
2.0.x.  And sorry I cannot explain as you can feel reasonable.

I just think "security/gnupg" should be used as "what you should
choose" for "GnuPG".  If new ports user wants to install GnuPG, I hope
there is "security/gnupg" as recommended stable version.

I understand GnuPG developers think 1.4.x will be kept, but I think
dependents will migrate to use modularized 2.0.x line.  Though
development is continue, Number of API consumer of 1.4.x line will be
getting smaller.

So, for 1 or 2 years later, I think existance of good stable
"security/gnupg" and historical "security/gnupg1" will be less
confusing (IMHO).

GnuPG development will continue.  So there will be GnuPG 3.x line.
Above approach can be adopted.

Anyway, this way maybe old-porters thinking.  I liked to use
"<category>/<portname>" directory name (without version number).
Using version number in ports directory is very exceptional event for
keeping old ports (like "emacs", "emacs19", "emacs20").  I thought
this is the way to indicate "what you should choose" for port users.

But, there are port directories with version number than past.  I can
change my mind if it is suitable recently.


-- 
Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama at imgsrc.co.jp> // IMG SRC, Inc.
             <kuriyama at FreeBSD.org> // FreeBSD Project