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.
> I don't see harm in keeping symlinks for the existing binaries, they may
> be used in user configurations and scripts in various places on the system
> and I don't think there's a good reason to break these.
Having thought about this, I'm with Stuart on this one. It's good for
users and it'd be less error prone for us.
Thanks.
--
Best Regards
Edd Barrett
http://www.theunixzoo.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment