HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

[Jun Kuriyama]

At Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:28:21 -0800,
Doug Barton wrote:
> >> I have no clue about last problem for now (only pkg-message or
> >> UPDATING).  This maybe critical for casual portupgrade users.
> > 
> > Err... I wonder...  How about repo-copying (or rather, repo-moving)
> > the current security/gnupg to security/gnupg1, and creating a new
> > security/gnupg meta-port with runtime dependencies on *both* gnupg1 and
> > gnupg2?
> 
> In my mind this is overkill, since the gpg2 binary provides exactly
> the same functionality as the gpg binary. I don't see any reason to
> install them both.
> 
> What might make sense is for the gnupg 2.x port to install a gpg
> symlink to gpg2. I've done that on my own system for convenience sake.
> That will get hairy if the user tries to install gnupg 1.x though.
> Both gnupg ports will need logic to handle what to do with the symlink
> if the other port is installed.

Seems fine.  Like this?


-- 
Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama at imgsrc.co.jp> // IMG SRC, Inc.
             <kuriyama at FreeBSD.org> // FreeBSD Project
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gnupg.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 23015 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20061213/9ea1c6e2/gnupg.obj