State of the GnuPG ports

[Mihai Moldovan]

On 09/29/2017 12:03 PM, Leonardo Brondani Schenkel wrote:
> Does it make sense? Can we agree on a concrete strategy (this or a 
> proposed alternative) that we can start implementing?

The strategy will be gnupg-{legacy,stable,current} like you suggested. We've
been talking about that on IRC and it turns out that keeping version numbers in
the port name really won't do any good when compared to the "pseudo" names.

I didn't have time to get stuff going yet. The OpenSSH update was arguably more
important and the port more outdated.

The gnupg* port refactoring is the next thing on my todo list. Not in favor of a
PR. Rest assured that it will be carried out, though.


The most problematic part is that once I remove the 2.0-based gpg-agent, GPG 1.4
won't have a usable agent any longer. But I guess that's how life goes - and GPG
1.4 is mostly used on constraint systems that make automated changes and don't
use an agent in the first place.



Mihai

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 927 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20171009/2abe5215/attachment.sig>