Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 09:20:04 GMT From: "Jason E. Hale" <bsdkaffee@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/152888: security/gpgme: add workaround for: ** Sylpheed-WARNING: pgp_sign(): signing failed: Message-ID: <201101070920.p079K4q9063630@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/152888; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Jason E. Hale" <bsdkaffee@gmail.com> To: bug-followup@freebsd.org, exil@sasurai.se Cc: oliver@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/152888: security/gpgme: add workaround for: ** Sylpheed-WARNING: pgp_sign(): signing failed: Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 04:14:17 -0500 I don't think adding security/pinentry as a dependency to security/gpgme is the correct way to approach this. Gpgme is sort of a "middle-man" application and this sort of dependency either belongs at the very bottom or the very top. Not every port that uses gpgme requires pinentry, nor is it a requirement for gpgme itself to run properly. Pinentry is required for use with gpg-agent which is part of gnupg 2.x (this is stated in the pkg-message for security/gnupg). The biggest problem with adding security/pinentry as a direct dependency is that it pulls in all the major x11 toolkits by default (gtk1, gtk2, qt3, qt4) and I don't think most users want that. Users should install the flavor of pinentry that goes with their application. I think maybe the best solution would be for the maintainer of mail/sylpheed3 to add a runtime dependency on security/pinentry-gtk2 if the GPGME option is selected (I've CC'd him). - Jason
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201101070920.p079K4q9063630>