[gentoo-dev] USE-flag gnome-keyring isn't accurate anymore

[gentoo-dev] USE-flag gnome-keyring isn't accurate anymore

[tastytea]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1206 bytes --]

Hi! I've noticed that the gnome-keyring use-flag is not accurate
anymore for most packages. The only ebuilds with that flag that depend
on gnome-base/gnome-keyring seem to be[1] sys-auth/pambase and
mate-base/mate-session-manager.
All others depend on app-crypt/libsecret, which depends on
virtual/secret-service.
virtual/secret-service currently depends on gnome-base/gnome-keyring or
app-admin/keepassxc and KSecretService will be added too once upstream
is ready.

That's confusing for users of a secret service provider other than
gnome-keyring, so I propose we find a new use-flag.

x11-plugins/wmudmount already uses “secret” and
mate-extra/mate-power-manager uses “libsecret”.

I think “secret” may be too generic and “libsecret” is not ideal in case
an implemention comes along that is named differently. How about
“secret-service”?

Previously discussed in <https://bugs.gentoo.org/829730>.

Kind regards, tastytea

[1] I did a rather naive search with
`grep -Er 'gnome-keyring\?.*gnome-keyring' \
    $(portageq get_repo_path / gentoo)`

-- 
Get my PGP key with `gpg --locate-keys tastytea@tastytea.de` or at
<https://tastytea.de/tastytea.asc>.

[-- Attachment #2: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE-flag gnome-keyring isn't accurate anymore

[Matt Turner]

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:36 PM tastytea <gentoo@tastytea.de> wrote:
> I think “secret” may be too generic and “libsecret” is not ideal in case
> an implemention comes along that is named differently. How about
> “secret-service”?

I think this is a good idea.

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE-flag gnome-keyring isn't accurate anymore

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 483 bytes --]

El jue, 23-12-2021 a las 17:46 -0500, Matt Turner escribió:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:36 PM tastytea <gentoo@tastytea.de> wrote:
> > I think “secret” may be too generic and “libsecret” is not ideal in case
> > an implemention comes along that is named differently. How about
> > “secret-service”?
> 
> I think this is a good idea.
> 

And "keyring"? I am not sure if users not familiar with "libsecret" will
understand what "secret*" means in this context 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE-flag gnome-keyring isn't accurate anymore

[Marek Szuba]

On 24 December 2021 08:48:08 UTC, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:

>> > I think “secret” may be too generic and “libsecret” is not ideal in case
>> > an implemention comes along that is named differently. How about
>> > “secret-service”?
>> 
>> I think this is a good idea.
>> 
>
>And "keyring"? I am not sure if users not familiar with "libsecret" will
>understand what "secret*" means in this context 

Definitely a good idea. And I second "keyring", seeing as this term is also in use on other OSes.

-- 
Marecki

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE-flag gnome-keyring isn't accurate anymore

[John Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 718 bytes --]

"keyring" conveys the appropriate meaning, imho.

On Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 5:19 AM Marek Szuba <marecki@gentoo.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 24 December 2021 08:48:08 UTC, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> >> > I think “secret” may be too generic and “libsecret” is not ideal in
> case
> >> > an implemention comes along that is named differently. How about
> >> > “secret-service”?
> >>
> >> I think this is a good idea.
> >>
> >
> >And "keyring"? I am not sure if users not familiar with "libsecret" will
> >understand what "secret*" means in this context
>
> Definitely a good idea. And I second "keyring", seeing as this term is
> also in use on other OSes.
>
> --
> Marecki
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1194 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE-flag gnome-keyring isn't accurate anymore

[Andreas Sturmlechner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 955 bytes --]

On Sonntag, 26. Dezember 2021 11:10:45 CEST John Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 5:19 AM Marek Szuba <marecki@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 24 December 2021 08:48:08 UTC, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >> > I think “secret” may be too generic and “libsecret” is not ideal in
> > >> > case an implemention comes along that is named differently. How about
> > >> > “secret-service”?
> > >> 
> > >> I think this is a good idea.
> > >
> > >And "keyring"? I am not sure if users not familiar with "libsecret" will
> > >understand what "secret*" means in this context
> > 
> > Definitely a good idea. And I second "keyring", seeing as this term is
> > also in use on other OSes.
> > 
> > --
> > Marecki
> 
> "keyring" conveys the appropriate meaning, imho.
> 

It seems that keyring won the popular vote. There is now a bug and a PR:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/905928
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/31035

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 789 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE-flag gnome-keyring isn't accurate anymore

[Marek Szuba]

On 24 December 2021 08:48:08 UTC, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:

>> > I think “secret” may be too generic and “libsecret” is not ideal in case
>> > an implemention comes along that is named differently. How about
>> > “secret-service”?
>> 
>> I think this is a good idea.
>> 
>
>And "keyring"? I am not sure if users not familiar with "libsecret" will
>understand what "secret*" means in this context 

Definitely a good idea. And I second "keyring", seeing as this term is also in use on other OSes.

-- 
Marecki