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
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
