Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 09:10:38 +0400 From: Roman Bogorodskiy <novel@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> 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 Message-ID: <20070903051037.GA27386@underworld.novel.ru> 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
--W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Doug Barton wrote: > I don't think this is a good idea for a few reasons. First off, the gnupg= =20 > port already has a pkg-message that is pretty clear about the fact that y= ou=20 > need to pick a pinentry dialog.=20 To be honest, I don't think that reporting about dependencies via pkg-message is a sane way of doing things. Our ports system is mature enough to handle dependencies on its own, without requiring users to install dependencies by hand. > Second, I don't think that the pinentry=20 > port itself is a good choice in its current state. I just did a quick tes= t=20 > and as far as I can tell it seems to want to build all of them, which mea= ns=20 > depending on QT3, and GTK 1 and 2. That seems to be a problem indeed.=20 > I sort of think that this might be reasonable if the pinentry port grew= =20 > OPTIONS, which I would even be willing to work on if lofi thought it was = a=20 > good idea. But I don't think the overhead of drawing all of the dialogs i= n=20 > is worth it, and I don't see an easy way of guessing which one the user= =20 > 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. > Can this change be backed out till there has been a little discussion? Backed out. =20 PS BTW, there's no linimon fault at all, it's not like I put this patch all of a sudden, it was in GNATS since August, 23th, so interested parties could easily comment on it. > Doug >=20 Roman Bogorodskiy --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iQCVAwUBRtuXTYB0WzgdqspGAQJoOwP+IoR0KIFFdkNFRfeEKbL9zZlbNrTVgdJE JmgeS9NYnMWu/NmCFY/lxqYxv1EC2AojRw77M7h71RU0f4FH5TYucT5cw2Mano3P 0P9M5FucuBohUAiV9NfyRhnrge9s9ZbY1PxSX/nbPc/pIRF2eMomnF8zxm8WMtBl +vwIYDSWm+I= =1y0m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070903051037.GA27386>