Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:20:38 -0500
From:      "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net>
To:        "Doug Barton" <dougb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        linimon@freebsd.org, lofi@freebsd.org, Roman Bogorodskiy <novel@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: ports/security/gnupg Makefile
Message-ID:  <op.tx1pkooj9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.0.9999.0709021304590.54479@ync.qbhto.arg>
References:  <200709021108.l82B8Axp085777@repoman.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.0.9999.0709021304590.54479@ync.qbhto.arg>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:10:45 -0500, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrot=
e:

> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
>
>> novel       2007-09-02 11:08:10 UTC
>>
>>  FreeBSD ports repository
>>
>>  Modified files:
>>    security/gnupg       Makefile
>>  Log:
>>  Add RUN_DEPEND on security/pinentry because gpg is almost useless
>>  without it.
>>
>>  PR:             115760   =

>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3D115760
>>  Submitted by:   novel
>>  Approved by:    maintainer timeout (1 week, linimon ok)
>>
>>  Revision  Changes    Path
>>  1.106     +2 -1      ports/security/gnupg/Makefile
>>
>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/security/gnupg/Makefile.d=
iff?&r1=3D1.105&r2=3D1.106&f=3Dh
>
> I don't think this is a good idea for a few reasons. First off, the  =

> gnupg port already has a pkg-message that is pretty clear about the fa=
ct  =

> that you need to pick a pinentry dialog. Second, I don't think that th=
e  =

> pinentry port itself is a good choice in its current state. I just did=
 a  =

> quick test and as far as I can tell it seems to want to build all of  =

> them, which means depending on QT3, and GTK 1 and 2.
>
> I sort of think that this might be reasonable if the pinentry port gre=
w  =

> OPTIONS, which I would even be willing to work on if lofi thought it w=
as  =

> a good idea. But I don't think the overhead of drawing all of the  =

> dialogs in is worth it, and I don't see an easy way of guessing which =
 =

> one the user would want by default.
>
> Can this change be backed out till there has been a little discussion?=


I will have to agree with Doug as I won't be surpised if a lot of users =
 =

are going to scream. I think, get it depends on pinentry-curses by defau=
lt  =

would be wise thing to do.

Cheers,
Mezz

> Doug


-- =

mezz7@cox.net  -  mezz@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team  -  FreeBSD Multimedia Hat (ports, not src)
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/  -  gnome@FreeBSD.org
http://wiki.freebsd.org/multimedia  -  multimedia@FreeBSD.org



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.tx1pkooj9aq2h7>