On Sun, Sep 06 2020, Edd Barrett <e...@theunixzoo.co.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 01:34:42PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: >> > We will also need to add a quirk... >> >> Not needed, the stem is the same so they are both considered as long as >> a matching pkgpath is declared. > > Great. That simplifies things a bit. > >> I think we should just replace security/gnupg with 2.x though. > > What's the reasoning behind your preference Stuart? I don't have a > strong opinion, but it does seem (at least at first glance) simpler to > use security/gnupg2 as jca@ suggested.
The cost of this approach is likely just: 1. more Makefile tweaks (there are more consumers of security/gnupg2 right now) 2. missing history when using cvs log in security/gnupg I think that we can live with 2. and that in the long run security/gnupg is just cleaner. I dislike cases where the package name and the port name don't match. -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
