[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Unify keyring related USE flags
From:       Pacho Ramos <pacho () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2014-11-13 13:44:44
Message-ID: 1415886284.9499.16.camel () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

El jue, 13-11-2014 a las 14:12 +0300, Alexander Tsoy escribió:
> В Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:53:56 +0100
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> пишет:
> 
> > El dom, 12-10-2014 a las 10:38 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > > El dom, 12-10-2014 a las 00:13 +0400, Alexander Tsoy escribió:
> > > [...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think we should simply have a "keyring" USE flag to enable what most
> > > > > people will want -> keyring support.
> > > > 
> > > > Some apps have optional support for both kwallet and gnome-keyring
> > > > (e.g. darktable, subversion). So I'm not sure you can leave a single
> > > > USE flag.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Maybe for them we could have an exception or review them as they also
> > > look to be a bit strange. For example, for concrete case of subversion
> > > looks like it's using gnome-keyring and "kde", that looks a bit
> > > inconsistent to me. We could use "gnome" and "kde" for example :/. Or
> > > have a "keyring" USE flag and, then "gnome" and "kde" behind that USE
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > any updates on this? :)
> > 
> 
> I don't know anything about kwallet, but gnome-keyring is useful
> outside of GNOME. So I don't like the idea of hiding gnome-keyring
> behind "gnome" use flag.
> 

But people wanting keyring support in gnome will know need to remember
to also enable "libsecret" (that will replace gnome-keyring at some
point). That is the main reason for suggesting the change. That and also
that "kde" USE flag is being used for keyring support in KDE
environment, and that can look a bit incoherent.

Having a more general "keyring" USE flag people could enable and, for
cases with multiple support, allow to switch between providers on KDE
and GNOME depending on their "kde" "gnome" USE flags looks to solve it
for me :/



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]