Doug Barton wrote: >> Security/pinentry is an "old school" master-port for the >> pinentry-[toolkit] slave-ports. I stopped doing master-slave ports of >> that sort after that one precisely because you end up in situations like >> this where people manage to miss the ports they are supposed to use >> despite the fact they are being pointed to them in pkg-messages and they >> can be very easily found in a search. > > So it sounds to me like you're saying that the pinentry port is not > designed to be used directly? Most users should not use it. A few might want to - if they want all the pinentry utilities and save themselves the trouble of typing pkg_add -r pinentry-curses pinentry-gtk pinentry-gtk2 pinentry-qt. Note by the way that the gnupg utiltities (i.e. gpg-agent) will try and automatically fall back on pinentry-curses if an X11-based pinentry fails. >> Apparently even committers sometimes cannot see the wood for the trees >> because Roman could have just added options for each of the pinentry >> slave ports to the already existing gnupg options menu in his PR >> instead. > > That's an interesting idea that I hadn't considered. I think doing > that, with a default of the curses version would probably be ok ... > the only concern I have with that is what to do if the user chooses > more than one and they conflict. Generate a fatal error? The pinentry slave ports do not conflict with each other - they only conflict with the master port.
Cheers, -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
