Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 1 Feb 2013 14:55:09 -0800
From:      Jason Helfman <jgh@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
Cc:        Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: security/gnupg
Message-ID:  <CAMuy=%2Biz0mEkqhUEaOxmEz97BVhT=opHRCeNC%2BB9vXVotBzQPg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADLo838Wp9Df3ARmh%2BUZh_4gaQ4m8eKfbOr8pOq_UoBkZa2mqA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <20130201103437.5bcae482@scorpio> <CADLo838Wp9Df3ARmh%2BUZh_4gaQ4m8eKfbOr8pOq_UoBkZa2mqA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1 Feb 2013 15:34, "Jerry" <jerry@seibercom.net> wrote:
> >
> > Many users have reported in the past that one of the problems with the
> > ports system is that "OPTIONS" are not properly documented. Usually, if
> > I spend some time, I can locate it but it is a PIA. However, with the
> > "security/gnupg" port, I cannot find out specifically what this option
> > does:
> >
> > [ ] STD_SOCKET  Use standard socket for agent
> >
> > This is off by default. Is there any advantage to activating it and
> > why isn't it using a standard socket to begin with?
> >
> > Maybe if a port had a file name "options-descr" or some such thing and
> > it listed each available option in the port and specifically what it
> > did or how it effected the operation of the application, it would prove
> > beneficial to the end use. Just my 2=A2 on the matter.
>
> You're right, and ports will move towards more verbose option description=
s
> in the future.  However, the version dialog in older (but still supported=
)
> versions of FreeBSD chokes on long descriptions.  Once we are free of
> supporting older versions, longer/more descriptive descriptions will be
> possible.
>
> Perhaps Kuriyama-san may comment on STD_SOCKET, but my general rule of
> thumb is to customise as little as possible, so if the option isn't
> obviously what you want, just leave it as default :)
>
> Chris
>
>
Agreed with all of stated above, and please use the documentation as well
to see if it is noted there. Enabling the flag in the port adds
--enable-standard-socket to the CONFIGURE arguments for the ports build
process.

http://www.gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gnupg/Agent-Options.html
--use-standard-socket--no-use-standard-socketBy enabling this option
gpg-agent will listen on the socket named S.gpg-agent, located in the home
directory, and not create a random socket below a temporary directory.
Tools connecting to gpg-agent should first try to connect to the socket
given in environment variable GPG_AGENT_INFO and then fall back to this
socket. This option may not be used if the home directory is mounted on a
remote file system which does not support special files like fifos or
sockets. Note, that --use-standard-socket is the default on Windows
systems. The default may be changed at build time. It is possible to test
at runtime whether the agent has been configured for use with the standard
socket by issuing the command gpg-agent --use-standard-socket-p which
returns success if the standard socket option has been enabled.

HTH
-jgh



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAMuy=%2Biz0mEkqhUEaOxmEz97BVhT=opHRCeNC%2BB9vXVotBzQPg>