Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:51:24 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org>, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP : security/gnupg will be upgraded to 2.0.1 Message-ID: <20061212145124.GA3446@straylight.m.ringlet.net> In-Reply-To: <7mbqm9ijr9.wl%kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> References: <7mu003jdyg.wl%kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> <457DA05F.8010805@FreeBSD.org> <7mr6v6ht57.wl%kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> <457E5DB4.7030204@FreeBSD.org> <7mbqm9ijr9.wl%kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #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 install a symlink if gnupg1 is not > > installed? And if so, will it CONFLICT with that port? If we are going > > 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. > > Yes, that's my difficult decision in this upgrade. I understand you > care about existing users not to violate POLA, but I basically choose > this way for new users. :-( > > If "gpg" binary consumer is ports-installed one and have explicit > dependency on its Makefile, "portupgrade -R gnupg" will install > security/gnupg *AND* security/gnupg1. But if is is not from ports, > just only users from command line or have implicit dependency (like > mail/mailcrypt which I'm using), only "gpg2" binary is exist after > portupgrade. > > 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 to security/gnupg1, and creating a new security/gnupg meta-port with runtime dependencies on *both* gnupg1 and gnupg2? G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev roam@ringlet.net roam@cnsys.bg roam@FreeBSD.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 If there were no counterfactuals, this sentence would not have been paradoxical. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFfsHs7Ri2jRYZRVMRAmRRAJ0bjNPakUXDKYiLDCBZAVUm2VIojgCgofq3 TTYycZyPMSueKsbrt8+WVQs= =MITo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061212145124.GA3446>