cvs commit: ports/security/gnupg Makefile

[Doug Barton]

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