Subject: Re: GnuPG release: Version 2.0.0 and security/gnupg-devel
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: John R. Shannon <email@example.com>
Date: 11/17/2006 05:21:44
I've added security/gnupg2.
Is the correct step now to remove security/gnupg-devel? Should I leave it in
pkgsrc until some point in the future? Should I empty it leaving a DESCR
pointing to gnupg2 as a replacement?
On Monday 13 November 2006 07:04, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 06:18:13AM -0700, John R. Shannon wrote:
> > GnuPG 2.0.0 was just released. This is the package the I've been tracking
> > with security/gnupg-devel for several years. The question is, "What
> > should the package be named now that its been released?"
> > It seems that this should not replace security/gnupg. GnuPG-2 has a
> > different architecture than GnuPG-1 (e.g. 1.4.5) in that
> > it splits up functionality into several modules. However, both
> > versions may be installed alongside without any conflict. In fact,
> > the gpg version from GnuPG-1 is able to make use of the gpg-agent as
> > included in GnuPG-2 and allows for seamless passphrase caching. The
> > advantage of GnuPG-1 is its smaller size and the lack of dependency on
> > other modules at run and build time.
> > Should I replace security/gnupg-devel with security/gnupg2?
> Yes, I think so. Especially since the release notes state "We will keep
> maintaining GnuPG-1 versions because they are very useful for small systems
> and for server based applications requiring only OpenPGP support," so there
> is no reason to obsolete the security/gnupg package now.
John R. Shannon