Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/security/gnupg21

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 06:30:47PM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>, Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:09:41 +0200
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:11:42AM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
> >> I would like to commit these and remove security/gnupg2/buildlink3.mk
> >> after freeze.
> >> Please send me your comments.
> > 
> > Wrong package name.
> ???

It's still called gnupg, not gnupg2.

> > The question remains -- why point source builds to
> > the 2.0.x version, when binary packages and bulk builds are picking up
> > the higher 2.1.x version instead?
> 
> I have no idea about your bulk build environment.
> In general, higher version/revision number is preferred in pkgsrc.

Yes, but for source builds you tell it to use gnupg2, not gnupg21.

> > As we don't have tool support for
> > gnupg (and I don't see a good reason for wanting to have that), just use
> > ${PREFIX} and not find-prefix.mk.
> 
> At the moment, find-prefix.mk has less meaning.
> However using ${PREFIX} directly may became harmful in future.

For packages without builtin.mk support or custom sub-prefix, it is just
a left-over of package wedges. As such, it just adds noise and build
time.

Joerg