cvs commit: ports/security/gnupg Makefile

[Roman Bogorodskiy]

  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. 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 
> port itself is a good choice in its current state. I just did a quick test 
> and as far as I can tell it seems to want to build all of them, which means 
> depending on QT3, and GTK 1 and 2.

That seems to be a problem indeed. 

> 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.

> Can this change be backed out till there has been a little discussion?

Backed out.
 
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
> 

Roman Bogorodskiy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/attachments/20070903/58978df8/attachment.pgp