Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:47:07 +0200 From: Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, linimon@freebsd.org, Roman Bogorodskiy <novel@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/gnupg Makefile Message-ID: <46E18E9B.6070004@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.0.9999.0709041513570.2430@ync.qbhto.arg> References: <200709021108.l82B8Axp085777@repoman.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.0.9999.0709021304590.54479@ync.qbhto.arg> <20070903051037.GA27386@underworld.novel.ru> <alpine.BSF.0.9999.0709031352120.31928@ync.qbhto.arg> <46DD46EB.2020605@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.0.9999.0709041513570.2430@ync.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Doug Barton wrote: >> Security/pinentry is an "old school" master-port for the >> pinentry-[toolkit] slave-ports. I stopped doing master-slave ports of >> that sort after that one precisely because you end up in situations like >> this where people manage to miss the ports they are supposed to use >> despite the fact they are being pointed to them in pkg-messages and they >> can be very easily found in a search. > > So it sounds to me like you're saying that the pinentry port is not > designed to be used directly? Most users should not use it. A few might want to - if they want all the pinentry utilities and save themselves the trouble of typing pkg_add -r pinentry-curses pinentry-gtk pinentry-gtk2 pinentry-qt. Note by the way that the gnupg utiltities (i.e. gpg-agent) will try and automatically fall back on pinentry-curses if an X11-based pinentry fails. >> Apparently even committers sometimes cannot see the wood for the trees >> because Roman could have just added options for each of the pinentry >> slave ports to the already existing gnupg options menu in his PR >> instead. > > That's an interesting idea that I hadn't considered. I think doing > that, with a default of the curses version would probably be ok ... > the only concern I have with that is what to do if the user chooses > more than one and they conflict. Generate a fatal error? The pinentry slave ports do not conflict with each other - they only conflict with the master port. Cheers, -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG4Y6bXhc68WspdLARAtJmAKCL/yb9K0ZBDPqhq6KcVI1iG5RcOgCgpMv0 bbnR4esfinBFQFksawAJ+Uo= =h50U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46E18E9B.6070004>