Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

On 19/12/06, martinko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

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 up

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 02:08:06PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > Vasil Dimov wrote: [...] > > - NLS "Native Language Support" on \ > > [...] > > +OPTIONS= NLS "Include National Language Support" on \ > > > > I believe the N in NLS stands for Native. > > It's National. That's why you hav

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

Vasil Dimov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:44:00AM +0900, Jun Kuriyama wrote: >> At Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:28:21 -0800, >> Doug Barton wrote: > [...] >>> 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. >>>

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

On Dec 11, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Jun Kuriyama wrote: Anyway, this way maybe old-porters thinking. I liked to use "/" directory name (without version number). Using version number in ports directory is very exceptional event for keeping old ports (like "emacs", "emacs19", "emacs20"). I thought thi

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:44:00AM +0900, Jun Kuriyama wrote: > At Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:28:21 -0800, > Doug Barton wrote: [...] > > 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 t

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

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 t

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:46:50PM +0900, Jun Kuriyama wrote: >> At Mon, 11 Dec 2006 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 >>> bina

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:46:50PM +0900, Jun Kuriyama wrote: > At Mon, 11 Dec 2006 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?" Will you i

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

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 upgra

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

At Mon, 11 Dec 2006 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?" Will you install a symlink if gnupg1 is not > installed? And if so, will it CONFLI

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

Jun Kuriyama wrote: > At first, thank you for your helping to upgrade our gnupg world to > 2.0.x. And sorry I cannot explain as you can feel reasonable. I just want to make sure that the relevant issues are well thought out, which it sounds like you have done. > I just think "security/gnupg" sh

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

On 12/12/06, Jun Kuriyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I just think "security/gnupg" should be used as "what you should choose" for "GnuPG". If new ports user wants to install GnuPG, I hope there is "security/gnupg" as recommended stable version. An unversioned directory is the maintainer-design

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

At Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:15:59 -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > 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 ha

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

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 portup

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 07:42:00PM +, Shaun Amott wrote: > > 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. > Sorry - ignore that last bit. I wasn't thinking. :-) -- Shaun Amott //

Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1

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 sug