Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:36:28 +0100 From: martinko <gamato@users.sf.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1 Message-ID: <em9phc$635$1@sea.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20061212090333.GA833@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <7mu003jdyg.wl%kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> <457DA05F.8010805@FreeBSD.org> <7mr6v6ht57.wl%kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> <457E5DB4.7030204@FreeBSD.org> <20061212090333.GA833@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 upgrade a port, > I expect the upgraded port to have a similar user interface. From > the comments in this thread, it seems that there are significant > changes between gnupg 1.x and gnupg 2.x. > >> to suggest to users that 2.x is the default, I think we need to >> provide support for those legacy(?) apps that think gnupg is spelled gpg. > > Keep in mind that for a significant number of people, gpg is > effectively embedded in their MUA or other tools so a UI change is a > real PITA. In my case, about the only time I actually use gpg > directly is when I need to edit a key. The rest of the time, I > rely on a pile of commands embedded in my .muttrc > > I would prefer to see gnupg 2.x introduced as security/gnupg2 > I concur. M.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?em9phc$635$1>