Re: Maybe this is a bug, should I report it?

[Bill Moran]

In response to Dan Mahoney, System Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 But why is it that portupgrade feels the need to upgrade gpg to gpg2, when 
 gpg is still in the tree?
 
 I'm running a portupgrade -rf gettext, and didn't previously have gpg2 
 installed.

Show us the output that demonstrates this problem.

My first guess is that it's not portupgrade that's doing it, but that
some port you're upgrading now lists gpg2 as a dependency instead of
gpg, which causes the attempted installation.

But I'm just speculating without more details.

-- 
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Maybe this is a bug, should I report it?

[Lowell Gilbert]

Dan Mahoney, System Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 But why is it that portupgrade feels the need to upgrade gpg to gpg2,
 when gpg is still in the tree?

 I'm running a portupgrade -rf gettext, and didn't previously have gpg2
 installed.

security/gnupg is gpg2, and has been for about a year.  
gpg1 is now a separate port, and you need to make separate
arrangements if you want to start using security/gnupg1 instead of
security/gnupg.  portupgrade has a -o option for this purpose.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]