On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > BTW, would it make sense to turn on signing if gpg is installed (unless
> > it's explicitly turned on or off from outside, of course)?
>
> Mhhh... yes, I guess so: not so many peolpe have GPG installed but don't
> have generated a key pair... so the signature command should "work" anyway.
> But maybe people wouldn't like the script to stop asking for a pwd.
That's a GnuPG thing, right? There's nothing in the script itself that
does any prompting...
> I think the best idea is to but another variable: BATCH.
> If it is 1 many thing (such as SIG) are automatically skipped.
>
> Right now only SIG comes to my mind, but a variable named BATCH could be
> easier to understand to who need it to work "in batch", I guess..?
Well, I just realized anyway that the script *should* run unattended when
building from source on a user machine, independent of whether the user
has gpg or not. So, unless package signing is an integral part of the
build process, the signing should only be turned on by the maintainer, and
be off by default everywhere else.
I will, however, make the changes that allow SIG, MY_CFLAGS and MY_LDFLAGS
to be set in the environment, so that they can be overridden.
Which reminds me: Chuck, is there a reason why the *FLAGS vars are called
MY_{C,LD}FLAGS, rather than just {C,LD}FLAGS? If it's just historical,
should I rename them so that they're consistent with what make and
configure use?
Thanks,
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster." -- Patrick Naughton
