[kde-freebsd] gpgme upgrade patch

Jason E. Hale bsdkaffee at gmail.com
Sat Feb 7 09:46:25 CET 2009

On Saturday 07 February 2009 01:48:41 you wrote:

> D'oh! I always forget to check the PR database. I have no objections
> to you maintaining the port. I would like you to consider some of the
> changes I added though, especially downloading (and optionally
> verifying) the .sig file, and making the gpg version optional. I don't
> think we should force users to choose one version or the other, and in
> my (admittedly minimal) testing gnupg version 1 works just fine. If
> you need another copy of my patch, let me know.

I agree about verifying the signature.  The gnupg1 support I have trouble 
with.  I have no doubt gnupg1 works with gpgme, but currently every port that 
uses gpgme and directly depends on a gnupg version makes use of gnupg2.  I 
know gnupg1 and gnupg2 don't conflict, but I would be worried about using a 
libgpgme built using gnupg1 support with those ports that directly require 
gnupg2.  Simply adding gnupg1 support to gpgme wouldn't be able to check for 
this condition.

For example, security/seahorse requires gnupg2 and gpgme.  If someone 
previously installed gpgme with gnupg1 support and then built seahorse, it 
will pull in gnupg2 anyways.  The libgpgme that it links against will be set-
up for gnupg1, however.  The build could fail or it just may not work.  It 
will not be able to check which version of gnupg that gpgme was built for.

> Also, FYI there are a few gratuitous changes in your patch (moving
> things from one line to another without changing anything) that should
> generally be avoided without good reason.

I try to make all of my ports conform to the order of bsd.port.mk.  That is my 
only reason.


More information about the kde-freebsd mailing list