State of the GnuPG ports

[Leonardo Brondani Schenkel]

On 2017-10-09 10:25, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2017, at 18:46, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
> 
>> The strategy will be gnupg-{legacy,stable,current} like you suggested.
> 
> Do we really want to do that? We don't do that for other ports.

Could you clarify what exactly is the part that "we don't do"? Are you 
referring to having multiple versions of the same port, or using names 
instead of numbers?

The way I see it, there is precedence for both. Regarding the former, 
among a myriad of examples I will cite Python: python27 is "legacy", 
python36 is "current". Regarding the latter, I can think of libressl: 
the plain name is "stable" (2.5.x),  libressl-devel is "current" (2.6.x).

Is there anything I'm missing?

P.S.: Personally I'm agnostic if we adopt the "numbered" or "named" 
strategy.

// Leonardo.