From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 3 20:54:24 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542D016A41B for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:54:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E66EF13C469 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:54:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 16629 invoked by uid 399); 3 Sep 2007 20:54:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 3 Sep 2007 20:54:23 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:54:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Roman Bogorodskiy In-Reply-To: <20070903051037.GA27386@underworld.novel.ru> Message-ID: References: <200709021108.l82B8Axp085777@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070903051037.GA27386@underworld.novel.ru> X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! X-OpenPGP-Key-ID: 0xD5B2F0FB Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, lofi@freebsd.org, linimon@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/gnupg Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:54:24 -0000 On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: > >> 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. > > To be honest, I don't think that reporting about dependencies via > pkg-message is a sane way of doing things. Reasonable minds can differ on that topic. :) > Our ports system is mature enough to handle dependencies on its own, > without requiring users to install dependencies by hand. While in general I agree, in this case, given that the "right" choice isn't obvious I think it's reasonable. However ... >> 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. > > OPTIONS would be reasonable in this case. We can enable ncurses backend > by default and user will be able to configure the port to make it use > other backends he/she wants. That is basically what I had in mind. I'd like to hear from lofi, but my offer to help with that is still good. >> Can this change be backed out till there has been a little discussion? > > Backed out. I appreciate the prompt response, as do our users (one of whom was already bitten by this). Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection