I suppose that wouldn't be a bad idea. But we should first arrange it
so that "port search pgp" reveals the gnupg ports that we recommend
instead.
On Oct 12, 2007, at 03:23, Randall Wood wrote:
Is there any reason not to simply remove this port from the tree?
On 12 Oct 2007, at 02:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Revision: 29842
http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/
29842
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007-10-11 23:59:29 -0700 (Thu, 11 Oct 2007)
Log Message:
-----------
pgp: add a note that users probably don't want this software
Modified Paths:
--------------
trunk/dports/mail/pgp5/Portfile
Modified: trunk/dports/mail/pgp5/Portfile
===================================================================
--- trunk/dports/mail/pgp5/Portfile 2007-10-11 23:35:49 UTC (rev
29841)
+++ trunk/dports/mail/pgp5/Portfile 2007-10-12 06:59:29 UTC (rev
29842)
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
PGP 5.0 contains support for new encryption methods (most notably \
DSS/Diffie-Hellman), and built-in keyserver support. Also, the \
command line has been redesigned to be more Unix and scripting \
- friendly.
+ friendly. Note: this software is old; you probably want gnupg or \
+ gnupg2 instead.
patchfiles pgpFullLicense.c-patch
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
