On 2021/07/05 15:43, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05 2021, Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> > On 2021/07/05 12:13, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 05 2021, Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> >> > There have been a few releases since the version in ports so I won't
> >> > copy the whole lot here, but release notes are in
> >> > https://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=blob;f=NEWS;h=e37d5aa5d46276e0e3e462b7619c9678e374ab69;hb=695a879af81e895741109874b9ac0712e1afc994
> >>
> >> FWIW I pinged edd@ about this yesterday. He replied with a wip diff
> >> which includes an update to 2.3.1. 2.2 is the current stable branch,
> >> 2.3 is the new devel branch (since 2021-04-07).
> >>
> >> I have no opinion whether we should use the stable or devel branch, I'll
> >> just note that we have used the 2.1 devel branch in the past.
> >>
> >> > The doc/Makefile.in patch didn't apply, rather than updating it I just
> >> > changed to rm'ing in post-install to save work for future updates.
> >>
> >> Makes sense to me.
> >>
> >> > OK?
> >>
> >> make test passes on amd64 and sparc64.
> >>
> >> ok jca@ fwiw but as I said Edd has a wip update to 2.3.1.
> >
> > Thanks. It feels to me a bit early to switch to the 2.3 branch as as the
> > only version; the release announcements upstream currently say "may even
> > be used for production purposes if either the risk of minor regressions
> > is acceptable or the new features are important."
> >
> > If there's enough interest in running the development version,
>
> This happened with the 2.1 branch where some people were eager to use
> new features.
>
> > having the
> > two in parallel might be a safer approach?
>
> That's one way to handle it. It makes things a tad more complicated wrt
> runtime deps but the gnupg/gnupg2 proved that it works fine in practice.
I don't think anything needs to depend on the devel version, and
the two packages can conflict with each other (e.g. security/gnupg
and security/gnupg23, with gnupg-2.2.XX ang gnupg-2.3.XX PKGNAMEs)
and both providing the usual set of files without renaming - bin/gnupg,
bin/dirmngr, share/doc/gnupg/* etc - the dependency would be on
security/gnupg but the default PKGSPEC of gnupg-* will allow either
version to satisfy the dependency.
That's if there's really a need to run the two in parallel anyway.
> Something to keep in mind: the devel branch appears to have
> a discontinuous schedule.
>
> | | stable | devel |
> |------+--------+--------|
> | 2006 | 2.0.0 | |
> | | x | |
> | 2007 | x | |
> | | x | |
> | 2008 | x | |
> | | x | |
> | 2009 | x | |
> | | x | |
> | 2010 | x | |
> | | x | |
> | 2011 | x | |
> | | x | |
> | 2012 | x | |
> | | x | |
> | 2013 | x | |
> | | x | |
> | 2014 | x | 2.1.0 |
> | | x | x |
> | 2015 | x | x |
> | | x | x |
> | 2016 | 2.0.30 | x |
> | | | x |
> | 2017 | 2.2.0 | 2.1.23 |
> | | x | |
> | 2018 | x | |
> | | x | |
> | 2019 | x | |
> | | x | |
> | 2020 | x | |
> | | x | |
> | 2021 | 2.2.29 | 2.3.0 |
> | | x | 2.3.1 |
> | 2022 | x | ? |
> | | x | ? |
> | 2023 | x | ? |
> | | x | ? |
> | 2024 | 2.2.X | ? |
> | | | ? |
> | | | ? |
>
> 2.2 will be discontinued in 2024 (see End-of-life announcements
> in https://www.gnupg.org/download/index.html).
> While I can't speak for upstream, I expect 2.3 to disappear once 2.4 is
> announced. So 2.3 users could be moved automatically to 2.4/stable, but
> they'll have to manually upgrade to the new 2.5/devel branch when it
> becomes available.
>
> My two cents,
> --
> jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
>
No comments:
Post a Comment