I suppose that wouldn't be a bad idea. But we should first arrange it so that "port search pgp" reveals the gnupg ports that we recommend instead. On Oct 12, 2007, at 03:23, Randall Wood wrote:
Is there any reason not to simply remove this port from the tree?
On 12 Oct 2007, at 02:59, source_changes@macosforge.org wrote:
Revision: 29842 http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/ 29842 Author: ryandesign@macports.org Date: 2007-10-11 23:59:29 -0700 (Thu, 11 Oct 2007)
Log Message: ----------- pgp: add a note that users probably don't want this software
Modified Paths: -------------- trunk/dports/mail/pgp5/Portfile
Modified: trunk/dports/mail/pgp5/Portfile =================================================================== --- trunk/dports/mail/pgp5/Portfile 2007-10-11 23:35:49 UTC (rev 29841) +++ trunk/dports/mail/pgp5/Portfile 2007-10-12 06:59:29 UTC (rev 29842) @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ PGP 5.0 contains support for new encryption methods (most notably \ DSS/Diffie-Hellman), and built-in keyserver support. Also, the \ command line has been redesigned to be more Unix and scripting \ - friendly. + friendly. Note: this software is old; you probably want gnupg or \ + gnupg2 instead.
patchfiles pgpFullLicense.c-patch