On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:23:38 +0300 (MSK) Dmitry Morozovsky <ma...@rinet.ru> wrote
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, Chris H wrote: > > > > >It looks as though it would be feasible to write an extremely > > > >lightweight pinentry-compatible program to depend on so we can kill the > > > >dependency bloat and have a simple shell-based password entry option. > > > > > > > >Anyone up for a weekend challenge? :-) > > > > > > There has been another thread on this mailing list discussing making the > > > port honour the WITHOUT_X11 and OPTIONS_UNSET+=X11 options from > > > make.conf which would make it only depend on security/pinentry-curses > > > instead of security/pinentry. This seems like a good solution to me. It > > > would mean if one of those options is set it will only drag in a single > > > dependancy rather than all the X11 libraries and GTK. > > A quick look @ the security/pinentry Makefile, indicates that the > > request for this type of modification is trivial. It simply requires > > reversing the (PORT_)OPTIONS logic -- this port could completed in > > under 5 minutes. So unless instructed otherwise, I'll go ahead with > > this. > > One last question; pinentry-console, or pinentry-nox? > > already defined: pinentry-curses ;) Right you are, Dmitry. :) > > (see side thread) > > Patch I snet previoursy is syntax incorrect, the following seems to be more > useful: > > Index: Makefile > =================================================================== > --- Makefile (revision 375271) > +++ Makefile (working copy) > @@ -22,7 +22,11 @@ > libksba.so:${PORTSDIR}/security/libksba \ > libnpth.so:${PORTSDIR}/devel/npth > BUILD_DEPENDS= libgpg-error>=1.11:${PORTSDIR}/security/libgpg-error > +.if defined(WITHOUT_X11) || !empty(OPTIONS_UNSET:MX11) > +RUN_DEPENDS= pinentry>0:${PORTSDIR}/security/pinentry-curses > +.else > RUN_DEPENDS= pinentry>0:${PORTSDIR}/security/pinentry > +.endif > > GNU_CONFIGURE= YES > USES= gmake iconv tar:bzip2 Yes, I had a closer look at the code last night, and the only possible addition I could find. Was possibly adding: --disable-fallback-curses to the -ncurses slave port. But in the end, what would be gained? I think your patch above does it all. Thanks for your time, and consideration, Dmitry, and have a Merry Christmas! --Chris > > > -- > Sincerely, > D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] > [ FreeBSD committer: ma...@freebsd.org ] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- ma...@rinet.ru *** > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"