Pass now version 1.3 #14921

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants

Features:

  • Let PASSWORD_STORE_DIR override the password store directory location
  • Use GNU getopt to allow arguments to be anywhere
  • Confirm before overwriting on insert (use --force to revert behavior)
  • Use GNU readline when reading passwords in the default insert mode
  • Skip directories and add edit mode to ZSH completion file
  • Make GPG output quieter
  • Support ramdisk on OSX via out-of-tree patch (included in the
    formula)
  • Add --version switch
  • Added a test to the formula for existance

Bug fixes:

  • Don't quote $EDITOR, so that folks can specify arguments to their editor
  • Be careful about cleaning up temporary files -- use signal handler
    to ensure it happens
  • Make more efficient use of bash's read command for prompting
  • Split out common gpg options into unified variable

I fixed the #{bin}/pass issue for the test.

Theo Belaire Pass updated to 1.3
Features:
  - Let PASSWORD_STORE_DIR override the password store directory location
  - Use GNU getopt to allow arguments to be anywhere
  - Confirm before overwriting on insert (use --force to revert behavior)
  - Use GNU readline when reading passwords in the default insert mode
  - Skip directories and add edit mode to ZSH completion file
  - Make GPG output quieter
  - Support ramdisk on OSX via out-of-tree patch (included in the
    formula)
  - Add --version switch
  - Added a test to the formula for existance

Bug fixes:
  - Don't quote $EDITOR, so that folks can specify arguments to their editor
  - Be careful about cleaning up temporary files -- use signal handler
to ensure it happens
  - Make more efficient use of bash's read command for prompting
  - Split out common gpg options into unified variable
5830705

@jacknagel jacknagel commented on the diff Sep 13, 2012

Library/Formula/pass.rb
end
inreplace "man/pass.1", "xclip", "pbcopy"
system "make DESTDIR=#{prefix} PREFIX=/ install"
end
+ def test
+ system '#{bin}/pass --version'
@jacknagel

jacknagel Sep 13, 2012

Contributor

You need double quotes for interpolation to work.

also, split this into two arguments: system "#{bin}/pass", "--version"

@zx2c4

zx2c4 Sep 14, 2012

Contributor

Noted, and I will fix TyrGodOfWar's work myself for the replacement version.

@tbelaire

tbelaire Sep 14, 2012

Just for future reference, what is the appropriate way to test things? There wasn't much on the wiki about it. Are there any brews with good examples I should look at?

@MikeMcQuaid

MikeMcQuaid Sep 14, 2012

Owner

imagemagick has a reasonable test; doing something useful with the program that might coax it to e.g. segfault if compiled incorrectly.

@jacknagel jacknagel commented on the diff Sep 13, 2012

Library/Formula/pass.rb
depends_on 'gnupg2'
+ def patches
+ # Use ramdisk for volatile storage in OSX.
+ # At the moment, upstream does not have interest in merging this,
+ # though perhaps they might be pursuaded otherwise later.
+ DATA
@jacknagel

jacknagel Sep 13, 2012

Contributor

Is the patch necessary? Why did upstream reject it?

Frankly, if upstream is interested in distributing their software on OS X, so much so that the developer is also the originator of the formula, then I would think they would be interested in patches to make it work better.

IOW, it's not our job to maintain things like this.

@zx2c4

zx2c4 Sep 13, 2012

Contributor

The patch is absolutely necessary.

@jacknagel

jacknagel Sep 13, 2012

Contributor

Fine. What if someone wants to install it on OS X without using Homebrew? Must they also apply a secondary patch?

Again, not our job to maintain it.

@zx2c4

zx2c4 Sep 13, 2012

Contributor

I don't think any ones asking you for said maintenance. The patch won't be merged upstream, and users require it for use with Homebrew, and so the users who maintain the Mac things handle this patch.

@jacknagel

jacknagel Sep 13, 2012

Contributor

If we have to carry the patch in the formula, we become responsible for it. Simple as that.

@zx2c4

zx2c4 Sep 13, 2012

Contributor

The patch makes things work. I don't think this is an objectionable goal. The formula works, and will continue to work in the future, with this patch. The application works with this formula, and will continue to work in the future, with this formula.

@jacknagel

jacknagel Sep 13, 2012

Contributor

It's not an objectionable goal. But this is your software. Why can't you carry this patch?

If you aren't actually interested in supporting OS X properly, then why did you submit the formula in the first place?

Homebrew is not Debian. We have real objections to carrying patches that can easily be incorporated upstream.

@zx2c4

zx2c4 Sep 13, 2012

Contributor

It's not an objectionable goal. But this is your software. Why can't you carry this patch?

This discussion is out of scope here. If you'd like to chime in on that, head on over to lists.zx2c4.com where there's quite a bit of discussion.

If you aren't actually interested in supporting OS X properly, then why did you submit the formula in the first place?

I don't think the premise of this question has been actually been established. Who says upstream isn't interested in OSX?

Homebrew is not Debian. We have real objections to carrying patches that can easily be incorporated upstream.

"Easily incorporated" is again a spurious claim. I'd encourage you to join the mailing list if you'd like to chime in on this discussion.

@jacknagel

jacknagel Sep 13, 2012

Contributor

I don't think the premise of this question has been actually been established. Who says upstream isn't interested in OSX?

You, by refusing to merge this patch but insisting that it is absolutely necessary.

Homebrew has six maintainers and thousands of packages. We do not merge patches unless they are going upstream.

@zx2c4

zx2c4 Sep 13, 2012

Contributor

You, by refusing to merge this patch but insisting that it is absolutely necessary.

This is something of a leap in logic...

We do not merge patches unless they are going upstream.

Again, more assumptions about the situation.

@jacknagel

jacknagel Sep 13, 2012

Contributor

Again, more assumptions about the situation.

You said "The patch won't be merged upstream". Am I supposed to infer otherwise from that?

@zx2c4

zx2c4 Sep 13, 2012

Contributor

If you're really interested in the Mac situation, take a look at the mailing list.

At the moment, this patch is the best situation possible.

@jacknagel

jacknagel Sep 14, 2012

Contributor

I read the thread in question, the gist of which appears to be "I might consider something like it in the future, but for now the Homebrew people can be responsible for it."

Sigh. This is not how we do things.

It does appear that there are one or two OS X users willing to help ensure this functionality works, but the parties involved in that are you and those users, and not Homebrew.

@zx2c4

zx2c4 Sep 14, 2012

Contributor

Not the homebrew people being responsible, but the extremely capable and motivated Mac users on the list, for now.

Let's merge this formula (pending Theo's fix below), and down the road there will be a prettier solution for all. I have the same reaction to frankenstein software as you do.

@jacknagel

jacknagel Sep 14, 2012

Contributor

I can't stop another maintainer from merging this if they decide it is appropriate, but IMO we have been left holding the bag enough times that we shouldn't make exceptions.

@mistydemeo

mistydemeo Sep 14, 2012

Contributor

I made it clear earlier that we (meaning "Homebrew" in general) don't want to be in the position of maintaining software or large patches. Making small configuration changes is one thing, but I do not want to maintain growing patchsets that aren't being incorporated in the original project.

Given the direction this is going, it might be more appropriate for pass to be maintained in a tap rather than in Homebrew core.

@zx2c4

zx2c4 Sep 14, 2012

Contributor

Clearly stated.

I will find a different solution for you and release 1.3.1. Homebrew should skip 1.3.

Contributor

zx2c4 commented Sep 14, 2012

Please close this pull request, as it is now out of date.

It has been made obsolete by mxcl#14928 .

mistydemeo closed this Sep 14, 2012

xu-cheng locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 16, 2016

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.