On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 20:46 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>
> See the attached diff between the argument parsing.
Ok, thank you
> I warned you last time, that it wasn't commandline argumnents, but
> configure file arguments.
Part of that was going from the wrapper to replicate missing commands
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 10:03:56AM -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 14:30 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Slotting makes logic if there is some advantage of having both slots
> > installed at the same machine,
> Guess it's never been clear to you in upstream announcement
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 11:11 -0500, Doug Klima wrote:
> William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>
> Why don't you step up and offer to help maintain this?
If your asking me, because I am already over committed. I can't be in
all places doing all things. Plus in this regard I am just a user, and
we should
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 14:26 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>
>> On 12/12/07, Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>>
As I told you before, I wont slot these two.
>>> Could you provide a link to reasons that
On Dec 12, 2007 4:08 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 14:26 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > On 12/12/07, Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > > As I told you before, I wont slot these two.
> > >
> > > Could you provide a
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On 12/12/07, Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>> As I told you before, I wont slot these two.
>> Could you provide a link to reasons that lead you to this decision so
>> that interested readers can make their own opinion?
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.o
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 14:26 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On 12/12/07, Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > As I told you before, I wont slot these two.
> >
> > Could you provide a link to reasons that lead you to this decision so
> > that interested readers can make
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 14:30 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>
> Slotting makes logic if there is some advantage of having both slots
> installed at the same machine,
Guess it's never been clear to you in upstream announcement that gnupg-1
BENEFITS from gnupg-2 co-existing. Again go back and read the
On 12/12/07, Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With no slotting I can bet on GnuPG-1 going away shortly after all
> architectures have stabled GnuPG-2,
gpg-1.X series will be available as long as upstream maintain it.
> or is that not so and such users can
> mask >=GnuPG-1.9 and keep usi
On 12/12/07, Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > As I told you before, I wont slot these two.
>
> Could you provide a link to reasons that lead you to this decision so
> that interested readers can make their own opinion?
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159623
On K, 2007-12-12 at 07:07 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On 12/12/07, William L. Thomson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...We will keep maintaining GnuPG-1
> > versions because they are very useful for small systems and for server
> > based applications requiring only OpenPGP support."
>
> As I t
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> As I told you before, I wont slot these two.
Could you provide a link to reasons that lead you to this decision so
that interested readers can make their own opinion?
Cheers,
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital sign
On 12/12/07, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22:49 Tue 11 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 2007 9:21 AM, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 15:49 Sat 08 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > Seems reasonable. Any particular reason to slot gnupg-2 as SLOT 0
On 12/12/07, William L. Thomson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 15:49 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >
> > gnupg-2 is drop-in replacement of gnupg-1, so eventually no slotting
> > should be used.
>
> Drop in according to YOU, which I have taken issue with since 1/1/07.
> Per
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 15:49 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>
> gnupg-2 is drop-in replacement of gnupg-1, so eventually no slotting
> should be used.
Drop in according to YOU, which I have taken issue with since 1/1/07.
Per last upstream release, and every one since 2.x was release, just as
I have q
On 22:49 Tue 11 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2007 9:21 AM, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 15:49 Sat 08 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Seems reasonable. Any particular reason to slot gnupg-2 as SLOT 0 rather
> > than SLOT 1.9?
>
> he end result would be one slot..
On Dec 9, 2007 9:21 AM, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15:49 Sat 08 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I want to make gnupg-2 stable.
> >
> > The problem is that gnupg-1.9 was slotted as slot "1.9" and made stable.
> >
> > So now we have two slots, slot "0" and slot "
On 15:49 Sat 08 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I want to make gnupg-2 stable.
>
> The problem is that gnupg-1.9 was slotted as slot "1.9" and made stable.
>
> So now we have two slots, slot "0" and slot "1.9".
>
> gnupg-2 is drop-in replacement of gnupg-1, so eventually no slotting
Hello,
I want to make gnupg-2 stable.
The problem is that gnupg-1.9 was slotted as slot "1.9" and made stable.
So now we have two slots, slot "0" and slot "1.9".
gnupg-2 is drop-in replacement of gnupg-1, so eventually no slotting
should be used.
As far as I see, there are two migration pathes
19 matches
Mail list logo
