Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 15:37:11 +1000 From: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> To: Chris H <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: kuriyama@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Any guidance for gnupg-2.0 -> gnupg-2.1 (archived encrypted email)? Message-ID: <55640687.9070704@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1f553d90a8570bbd741b75b842dad455@ultimatedns.net> References: <20150524181321.GB1214@albert.catwhisker.org> <20150525205952.GA4054@rwpc15.gfn.riverwillow.net.au> <1f553d90a8570bbd741b75b842dad455@ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26/05/2015 12:54 PM, Chris H wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:59:52 +1000 John Marshall > <john.marshall@riverwillow.com.au> 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 <category>/portname, and <category>/portname-devel ? > Having portname track "stable", and the -devel branch track "current"? > Can gnupg be rearranged to follow this method? There are a couple of cases to consider: Note: I will refer to branches as !development, rather than stable/current/release, since often there isn't an absolutely clear distinction, or those designations can be relatively transient. a) Those projects that have many (read >2) "supported" versions/branches. b) Those projects that maintain 2 versions/branches, latest !development and development (next version) The category/portname and category/portname-devel convention only covers for (b), and is not necessarily a good convention for all cases. For instance ZeroMQ maintains quite a few previous "stable" branches. Having category/portname move across major/minor versions can (and does) break compatibility for dependent ports. In this case category/portnameXY is a better convention, perhaps with category/portname left to point to a DEFAULT_VERSION, which the user can change. Similar examples include apache, squid, postgresql, php among others. In this case, I'd have opted for gnupg20 and gnupg21 rather than a -devel distinction or moving gnupg across major/minor versions. Personally preference granted, but a considered one. My 2c Koobs
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55640687.9070704>