On Tue, 26 May 2015 15:37:11 +1000 Kubilay Kocak ko...@freebsd.org wrote
On 26/05/2015 12:54 PM, Chris H wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:59:52 +1000 John Marshall
john.marsh...@riverwillow.com.au wrote
On Sun, 24 May 2015, 11:13 -0700, David Wolfskill wrote:
Last November, I encountered
On Sun, 24 May 2015, 11:13 -0700, David Wolfskill wrote:
Last November, I encountered a reason to deviate from that: When
security/gnupg became gnupg-2.1, I found that gnupg-2.1 was unable to
decrypt some (well, any, in my experience) archived encrypted email
messages.
I was bitten badly in
On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:59:52 +1000 John Marshall
john.marsh...@riverwillow.com.au wrote
On Sun, 24 May 2015, 11:13 -0700, David Wolfskill wrote:
Last November, I encountered a reason to deviate from that: When
security/gnupg became gnupg-2.1, I found that gnupg-2.1 was unable to
decrypt
I would strongly encourage FreeBSD not to switch security/gnupg back to the 2.0
branch now that it has been 2.1 for a while, as that will break people's
keyrings and configurations.
2.1 is undoubtedly very different to earlier versions. Support for PGP 2.x keys
has been completely removed in
On 26/05/2015 12:54 PM, Chris H wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:59:52 +1000 John Marshall
john.marsh...@riverwillow.com.au wrote
On Sun, 24 May 2015, 11:13 -0700, David Wolfskill wrote:
Last November, I encountered a reason to deviate from that: When
security/gnupg became gnupg-2.1, I found
For the most part, I am fairly aggressive about ensuring that the
FreeBSD systems I use day-to-day are running a recent STABLE snapshot,
and that installed ports are also out-of-date by no more than a week.
Last November, I encountered a reason to deviate from that: When
security/gnupg became
