Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 09:12:05 +0400 From: Roman Bogorodskiy <novel@FreeBSD.org> To: Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, linimon@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/gnupg Makefile Message-ID: <20070905051205.GD64263@underworld.novel.ru> In-Reply-To: <46DD46EB.2020605@freebsd.org> References: <200709021108.l82B8Axp085777@repoman.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.0.9999.0709021304590.54479@ync.qbhto.arg> <20070903051037.GA27386@underworld.novel.ru> <alpine.BSF.0.9999.0709031352120.31928@ync.qbhto.arg> <46DD46EB.2020605@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--eDB11BtaWSyaBkpc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Michael Nottebrock wrote: > Doug Barton schrieb: > >> > >> 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. > Security/pinentry is an "old school" master-port for the > pinentry-[toolkit] slave-ports. I stopped doing master-slave ports of > that sort after that one precisely because you end up in situations like > this where people manage to miss the ports they are supposed to use > despite the fact they are being pointed to them in pkg-messages and they > can be very easily found in a search. >=20 > Apparently even committers sometimes cannot see the wood for the trees > because Roman could have just added options for each of the pinentry > slave ports to the already existing gnupg options menu in his PR > instead. I would like that better than a runtime dependency on an > option-ifyed pinentry port, but not by much, because the main reason why > I never added a runtime dependency on any pinentry to the gnupg port > (back when it was still gnupg-devel) still remains: Whatever pinentry > you depend on by default through whatever indirection, it will be always > be the wrong one for the package users out there. That is why the > pkg-message in gnupg exists. >=20 > So, do what you reckon is best, but I do not think that > security/pinentry needs to be changed. Eh... sorry, I don't consider configuring one port using OPTIONS of _other_ port is a sane way of doing things, it's even worse than handling dependencies using pkg-message. However, I'm not going to take part in this discussion anymore, you're free to do what you want, and I'm not even a maintainer of gnupg. KTHX Roman Bogorodskiy --eDB11BtaWSyaBkpc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iQCVAwUBRt46pYB0WzgdqspGAQKoJgP/fkLEgwtGmyuR7lUJKUKocy9LmxdJw1N3 z0kxhb11GaFlYrRA/Ws1M0lVleshoVtPKqgAIh6oyBBJWvnefnEUhUepA1znss2F IiOlytZ7iA1aElSjqN2FslbEYQtA4Xa5D8t8APOjamot1okypBkzEbzkt/mpuT7C xzlsgoyeX+Q= =7H+l -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eDB11BtaWSyaBkpc--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070905051205.GD64263>