On 2021/07/05 15:43, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 05 2021, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2021/07/05 12:13, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 05 2021, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > There have been a few releases since the version in ports so I won't > >> > copy the whole lot here, but release notes are in > >> > https://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=blob;f=NEWS;h=e37d5aa5d46276e0e3e462b7619c9678e374ab69;hb=695a879af81e895741109874b9ac0712e1afc994 > >> > >> FWIW I pinged edd@ about this yesterday. He replied with a wip diff > >> which includes an update to 2.3.1. 2.2 is the current stable branch, > >> 2.3 is the new devel branch (since 2021-04-07). > >> > >> I have no opinion whether we should use the stable or devel branch, I'll > >> just note that we have used the 2.1 devel branch in the past. > >> > >> > The doc/Makefile.in patch didn't apply, rather than updating it I just > >> > changed to rm'ing in post-install to save work for future updates. > >> > >> Makes sense to me. > >> > >> > OK? > >> > >> make test passes on amd64 and sparc64. > >> > >> ok jca@ fwiw but as I said Edd has a wip update to 2.3.1. > > > > Thanks. It feels to me a bit early to switch to the 2.3 branch as as the > > only version; the release announcements upstream currently say "may even > > be used for production purposes if either the risk of minor regressions > > is acceptable or the new features are important." > > > > If there's enough interest in running the development version, > > This happened with the 2.1 branch where some people were eager to use > new features. > > > having the > > two in parallel might be a safer approach? > > That's one way to handle it. It makes things a tad more complicated wrt > runtime deps but the gnupg/gnupg2 proved that it works fine in practice.
I don't think anything needs to depend on the devel version, and the two packages can conflict with each other (e.g. security/gnupg and security/gnupg23, with gnupg-2.2.XX ang gnupg-2.3.XX PKGNAMEs) and both providing the usual set of files without renaming - bin/gnupg, bin/dirmngr, share/doc/gnupg/* etc - the dependency would be on security/gnupg but the default PKGSPEC of gnupg-* will allow either version to satisfy the dependency. That's if there's really a need to run the two in parallel anyway. > Something to keep in mind: the devel branch appears to have > a discontinuous schedule. > > | | stable | devel | > |------+--------+--------| > | 2006 | 2.0.0 | | > | | x | | > | 2007 | x | | > | | x | | > | 2008 | x | | > | | x | | > | 2009 | x | | > | | x | | > | 2010 | x | | > | | x | | > | 2011 | x | | > | | x | | > | 2012 | x | | > | | x | | > | 2013 | x | | > | | x | | > | 2014 | x | 2.1.0 | > | | x | x | > | 2015 | x | x | > | | x | x | > | 2016 | 2.0.30 | x | > | | | x | > | 2017 | 2.2.0 | 2.1.23 | > | | x | | > | 2018 | x | | > | | x | | > | 2019 | x | | > | | x | | > | 2020 | x | | > | | x | | > | 2021 | 2.2.29 | 2.3.0 | > | | x | 2.3.1 | > | 2022 | x | ? | > | | x | ? | > | 2023 | x | ? | > | | x | ? | > | 2024 | 2.2.X | ? | > | | | ? | > | | | ? | > > 2.2 will be discontinued in 2024 (see End-of-life announcements > in https://www.gnupg.org/download/index.html). > While I can't speak for upstream, I expect 2.3 to disappear once 2.4 is > announced. So 2.3 users could be moved automatically to 2.4/stable, but > they'll have to manually upgrade to the new 2.5/devel branch when it > becomes available. > > My two cents, > -- > jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE >
