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
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:44:00AM +0900, Jun Kuriyama wrote:
At Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:28:21 -0800,
Doug Barton wrote:
[...]
What might make sense is for the gnupg 2.x port to install a gpg
symlink to gpg2. I've done that on my own system for convenience sake.
That will get hairy if the user
On Dec 11, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Jun Kuriyama wrote:
Anyway, this way maybe old-porters thinking. I liked to use
category/portname directory name (without version number).
Using version number in ports directory is very exceptional event for
keeping old ports (like emacs, emacs19, emacs20). I
Vasil Dimov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:44:00AM +0900, Jun Kuriyama wrote:
At Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:28:21 -0800,
Doug Barton wrote:
[...]
What might make sense is for the gnupg 2.x port to install a gpg
symlink to gpg2. I've done that on my own system for convenience sake.
That will get
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 02:08:06PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Vasil Dimov wrote:
[...]
- NLS Native Language Support on \
[...]
+OPTIONS= NLS Include National Language Support on \
I believe the N in NLS stands for Native.
It's National. That's why you have things like
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
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
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
Peter Pentchev wrote:
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?
At Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:28:21 -0800,
Doug Barton wrote:
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
Jun Kuriyama wrote:
Hi,
I'm planning to upgrade security/gnupg to 2.0.1. This upgrade
includes portrevision bumps to indicate dependency changes.
I'm testing conditional plist, upgrading procedure by portupgrade.
But I think it's almost ready to commit.
If you have further
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 07:42:00PM +, Shaun Amott wrote:
In addition: I would guess that mail/imp, and maybe others, expect
bin/gpg to be present. If this is indeed the case, it would need
additional patching.
Sorry - ignore that last bit. I wasn't thinking. :-)
--
Shaun Amott //
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 10:15:59AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Jun Kuriyama wrote:
Hi,
I'm planning to upgrade security/gnupg to 2.0.1. This upgrade
includes portrevision bumps to indicate dependency changes.
I'm testing conditional plist, upgrading procedure by portupgrade.
But
At Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:15:59 -0800,
Doug Barton wrote:
Thanks for letting us know what you're plans are. I think you know
what I'm going to say next. ;) As I suggested when I wrote to you in
private e-mail some time ago, I think it would be more in line with
the plans that the developers have
On 12/12/06, Jun Kuriyama [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Jun Kuriyama wrote:
At first, thank you for your helping to upgrade our gnupg world to
2.0.x. And sorry I cannot explain as you can feel reasonable.
I just want to make sure that the relevant issues are well thought
out, which it sounds like you have done.
I just think security/gnupg should
16 matches
Mail list logo
