On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 06:18:13AM -0700, John R. Shannon wrote:
> GnuPG 2.0.0 was just released. This is the package the I've been tracking with 
> security/gnupg-devel for several years. The question is, "What should the 
> package be named now that its been released?"
> 
> It seems that this should not replace security/gnupg. GnuPG-2 has a different 
> architecture than GnuPG-1 (e.g. 1.4.5) in that
> it splits up functionality into several modules.  However, both
> versions may be installed alongside without any conflict.  In fact,
> the gpg version from GnuPG-1 is able to make use of the gpg-agent as
> included in GnuPG-2 and allows for seamless passphrase caching.  The
> advantage of GnuPG-1 is its smaller size and the lack of dependency on
> other modules at run and build time. 
> 
> Should I replace security/gnupg-devel with security/gnupg2?

Yes, I think so.  Especially since the release notes state "We will keep
maintaining GnuPG-1 versions because they are very useful for small systems
and for server based applications requiring only OpenPGP support," so there
is no reason to obsolete the security/gnupg package now.

	Geert