On 2014-12-15 13:48 , Kurt Hindenburg wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandes...@macports.org> wrote: > >> >>> On Dec 14, 2014, at 11:59 AM, khindenb...@macports.org wrote: >> >> This doesn't look sufficient. If pinentry support is automatically included >> simply because pinentry is installed, then the main (non-pinentry) port >> needs to be fixed not to use pinentry even if it is already installed. >> >> Moreover, it seems strange to implement this as a subport instead of a >> variant. Unless a subport is a -devel subport, it's not supposed to conflict >> with the main port. Variants are typically used to enable optional features; >> pinentry support thus seems like a natural fit for a variant. What is the >> implication of having lastpass-cli built with pinentry support? I'm not >> really clear on what pinentry is. > > My fault - I was under the impression we didn’t want to use variants anymore. > I’ll correct shortly. pinentry is gnupg’s way to enter pin/password via > dialogs.
We don't want to use variants for things that other ports need to depend on. Variants are fine when there are no dependents or they're not affected by the chosen variants changing. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
