HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

[martinko]

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.