Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:29:24 -0400 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: linimon@FreeBSD.org, lofi@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, Roman Bogorodskiy <novel@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/gnupg Makefile Message-ID: <1188768564.97969.5.camel@shumai.marcuscom.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
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 13:10 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > 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=115760 > > 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.diff?&r1=1.105&r2=1.106&f=h > > 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 fact that > you need to pick a pinentry dialog. Second, I don't think that the > 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 grew > OPTIONS, which I would even be willing to work on if lofi thought it was 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? Not to mention, it breaks the package build: http://www.marcuscom.com/tb/errors/6.2-MarcusCom/gnupg-2.0.4.log Joe -- PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBG2ysxb2iPiv4Uz4cRAuD8AJ9zeLovmpCBL0ki4FJIr1BhGmgMsACdE1WZ SeVNqj4hbDzot1iyNYI0heY= =psw5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1188768564.97969.5.camel>