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
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 told you
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
Best
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 using a
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 their own
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?
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 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 link to reasons
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 lead you to this
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
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 that
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 or
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 1.9.
gnupg-2 is
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... If I
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
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 rather
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 last
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
should be
18 matches
Mail list logo
