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 -- Peter Jeremy
pgp7MFcDREwZa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
