State of the GnuPG ports

Rainer Müller raimue at
Mon Oct 9 12:11:29 UTC 2017

On 2017-10-09 11:00, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> No ports use -stable or -current suffixes. I wouldn't want a -current suffix since it's not clear linguistically what the difference would be between "stable" and "current". And since ports are assumed to be stable, I would want to avoid adding a -stable suffix. But using just "gnupg" as the stable 2.2 port name would cause an upgrade problem, since all users who currently have the "gnupg" port installed expect that to be 1.4. 

I would see no problem in switching gnupg to 2.2, as the command line
interface is still backwards compatible. We do the same for other port
updates, where the older version is retained with a numbered suffix, for
example autoconf/automake.

> For ease of upgrading, my preference is probably that gnupg2 be updated to 2.2 and gnupg21 be replaced_by gnupg2. If desired, gnupg2-devel could be added to track the development version. If desired, gnupg1 could be introduced and gnupg could be replaced_by gnupg1. If desired, far in the future, after everybody has upgraded (i.e. more than one year after the preceding changes have been committed), gnupg2 could be copied to and replaced_by gnupg and gnupg2-devel could be copied to and replaced_by gnupg-devel.

I would just move 1.4 to gnupg1 and let gnupg provide version 2.2, as
only few users will be looking for GnuPG 1.4.x these days. If there is
enough interested, create gnupg-devel for the 2.3 development branch.

gnupg       -> 2.2
gnupg-devel -> 2.3
gnupg1      -> 1.4

I do not care if they conflict or if gnupg1 just offers
${prefix}/bin/gpg1 and similarly suffixed binaries.

You can compare this with other distributions here:


More information about the macports-dev mailing list