Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 19:44:22 +0000
From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [Bug 195426] mail/pine-pgp-filters Makefile contains incomplete check for ${LOCALBASE}/bin/gpg2
Message-ID: <bug-195426-13-GTNKzbZNgX@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-195426-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-195426-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195426 --- Comment #4 from Trond.Endrestol@ximalas.info --- (In reply to John Marino from comment #3) Should we add OPTIONS* to the Makefile and let the user specify if mail/pine-pgp-filters should depend on gnupg2, gnupg1, or none of the above, with the latter being the default? I'm just thinking of the case where a particular user would like to build their own packages, and simultaneously pick the correct dependency to automate the installation of said ports/packages. I.e., if security/gnupg is missing, then pkg would install that one as well while installing mail/pine-pgp-filters. My initial motivation for the patch back in November, was that it's counterproductive to depend on security/gnupg1, since I'm more into security/gnupg than security/gnupg1. The OPTIONS* approach might be a flexible solution, suitable for everyone. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-195426-13-GTNKzbZNgX>