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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // IMG SRC, Inc.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // FreeBSD Project
gnupg.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
