svn commit: r373042 - head/security/gnupg20

[Tijl Coosemans]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:40:15 +0100 Baptiste Daroussin <bapt at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 09:53:17AM +0000, Jun Kuriyama wrote:
> > Author: kuriyama
> > Date: Sat Nov 22 09:53:16 2014
> > New Revision: 373042
> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/373042
> > QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r373042/
> > 
> 
> Just taking that commit, but that is all about the whole gnupg mess.
> 
> the introduction of gnupg2 has been a disaster for every user of packages that
> needs other binutils.
> 
> With this week package building everything single user of spamassasin for
> example (just picking one) which hard depends gnupg1 gets pkg(8) asking them to
> remove spamassassin if something they have pulls in the new gnupg, that is all
> because gnupg1 is conflicting with the new gnupg:
> 
> Installed packages to be REMOVED:
>         spamassassin-3.4.0_13
>         gnupg1-1.4.18_1
> New packages to be INSTALLED:
>         gnupg: 2.1.0_1
> 
> gnupg is a very important key software used by lots of packages upgrading it
> should be done with way more care.
> 
> gnupg 2.1 has been introduce 7 days ago, there was around 6 days to fix the
> conflicts before package building start :(

I would also prefer that security/gnupg is reverted back to 2.0.  That
is the current upstream stable release that other ports are known to
work with.  2.1 is a development release.  If it is at all needed to have
it in ports it should be in security/gnupg21 or security/gnupg-devel.