Hi, Elena! On Oct 01, Elena Stepanova wrote: > On 01.10.2015 16:01, Sergei Golubchik wrote: > > Hi, Jan! > > > > That's not a good idea. It'd mean that installing a plugin is not > > enough, it must be explicitly enabled. I don't see any reason why one > > should be forced to do it. > > My reasoning while creating the bug report is that the plugin does not > have a default configuration which would allow it to work out-of-box, it > still needs to be configured explicitly (by setting the key file); so, > there is no gain from enabling it automatically. But if you prefer it > this way, let it be so, I don't care much about this one as long as we > don't link the plugin statically in our official builds, and don't > anyhow suggest linking it so in documentation.
I don't see why anyone would link file_key_management plugin statically, unless he's making a special build to distribute within organization and want to have encryption enabled by default. And in this case a warning for a missing key file is indeed very much desirable. Regards, Sergei _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
