On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 10:15:59AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > > 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: >
I agree with Doug. Moving gnupg to gnupg1 implies to me that gnupg 2.x is a drop-in upgrade for gnupg 1.x, but this certainly doesn't seem to be the case. It's also rather strange to upgrade the "main" port (implying that 2.x is the recommended and default version), and then point all dependant ports at the *old* version. In addition: I would guess that mail/imp, and maybe others, expect bin/gpg to be present. If this is indeed the case, it would need additional patching. Regards, Shaun -- Shaun Amott // PGP: 0x6B387A9A "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
pgpVHHWplNzYn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
