Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:31:02 +0300 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> To: "Jun Kuriyama" <kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Shaun Amott <shaun@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1 Message-ID: <cb5206420612111731j3244c200y16a4eb67926cd09a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7mr6v6ht57.wl%kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> References: <7mu003jdyg.wl%kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> <457DA05F.8010805@FreeBSD.org> <7mr6v6ht57.wl%kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/12/06, Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> 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-designated
default version of a port. Unless its upgrades break
a whole bunch of ports (like python did), it's none
of our business when and why they happen. An advance
heads-up is nice, but redundant.
Doug, privately kept, but prompt versioning ways are
one of the ports {trade,hall}marks. Gentoo is broken
and Debian is stale, we're fighting somewhere in
between, thanks to sane decisions our contributors
make.
Shaun, whatever versioned dirs might seem to imply,
they don't imply (in)stability or (in)compatibility.
The unversioned one is the default one, that's it.
Hitting users with new versions, but leaving them
a chance to survive seems like a nice policy to me.
To conclude, I understand how Jun feels and think
that instead of bitching about his reasoning, we
should be insanely grateful for more than 8 years
of his impeccable gnupg maintainership.
THANKS, JUN!!!
This is all my humble 4:30AM opinion anyway :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420612111731j3244c200y16a4eb67926cd09a>