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
