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 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 >
I concur. M. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
