Pierre Pronchery <khorben%defora.org@localhost> writes: > On 23/03/2016 22:50, Thomas Klausner wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 06:41:35PM +0100, Tobias Nygren wrote: >>> I've asked before and I shall ask again: >>> Why do we have both versions? >>> Is there some specific use-case that gnupg 2.0 can do but gnupg 2.1 cannot? >>> What are the criteria that need to be met before we can ditch gnupg 2.0? >> >> Upstream says that 2.0.x is stable and 2.1.x is development. >> Get upstream to release 2.2 and we get rid of this problem :) > > Then I would suggest we default to gnupg2 for the moment. In the case of > thunderbird-enigmail, it is a leaf package, and it looks like there is > no previous (pkgsrc) release relying on gnupg21 for this package. > > @pkgsrc-pmc: can we change the default option to gnupg2 there? First, I would defer to ryoon who has been doing all the work on enigmail. While pkgsrc generally uses stable versions, there may be some reason in this case. Then, assuming ryoon's agreement: From a pmc/freeze viewpoint, It's fine to change the option default, since this is fixing what is arguably a bug, and is only changing a leaf.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature