From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 26 02:53:51 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41FB9E35 for ; Tue, 26 May 2015 02:53:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (unknown [IPv6:2602:d1:b4d6:e600:4261:86ff:fef6:aa2a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD179331 for ; Tue, 26 May 2015 02:53:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) Received: from ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t4Q2r0wj029075; Mon, 25 May 2015 19:53:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) To: Cc: In-Reply-To: <20150525205952.GA4054@rwpc15.gfn.riverwillow.net.au> References: <20150524181321.GB1214@albert.catwhisker.org>, <20150525205952.GA4054@rwpc15.gfn.riverwillow.net.au> From: "Chris H" Subject: Re: Any guidance for gnupg-2.0 -> gnupg-2.1 (archived encrypted email)? Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 19:54:28 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=fixed MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-id: <1f553d90a8570bbd741b75b842dad455@ultimatedns.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 02:53:51 -0000 On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:59:52 +1000 John Marshall wrote > On Sun, 24 May 2015, 11:13 -0700, David Wolfskill wrote: > > Last November, I encountered a reason to deviate from that: When > > security/gnupg became gnupg-2.1, I found that gnupg-2.1 was unable to > > decrypt some (well, any, in my experience) archived encrypted email > > messages. > > I was bitten badly in November when I blindly upgraded security/gnupg > and found myself in the new, shiny, non-STABLE version 2.1.0. I can't > remember the details, but too much stuff didn't work. I went to the > release notes and other places and spent about a day trying to make the > best of it. I had some success but ended up reverting security/gnupg -> > security/gnupg20 after I discovered the following on the GnuPG home > page. > > - 2.0.27 is the stable version suggested for most users, > - 2.1.4 is the brand-new modern version with support for ECC and many > other new features, and > - 1.4.19 is the classic portable version. > > The STABLE 2.0 branch still works for me and the surprise factor is not > as prominent as in 2.1. I have no idea why the main FreeBSD port was > switched from STABLE to CURRENT and the STABLE version was relegated to > a new version-tagged port. > > Sorry if this is off-topic but maybe it helps some folks. Isn't the standard way to deal with this in the ports tree, to create /portname, and /portname-devel ? Having portname track "stable", and the -devel branch track "current"? Can gnupg be rearranged to follow this method? CC-ing kuriyama@ --Chris > > -- > John Marshall