keepassx

keepassx

[David Stacey]

I am interested in porting keepassx [1] to Cygwin. This is a programme 
for the secure storage of passwords (e.g. for websites), built on Qt4. I 
have a few questions about this, and would value your opinions:

1. keepassx is present in Cygwin Ports. Yaakov: Are you happy for 
keepassx to be moved into the main Cygwin distro? If so, are you happy 
for me to maintain it, or would you prefer to do so yourself?

2. I have prepared builds of keepassx 0.4.3 (the last stable version) 
and 2.0-alpha3 (latest). We could include both if we wanted, obviously 
with the 'alpha' build as 'test'. Note that it is unlikely that the 
'alpha' build would ever become current - we would just update the 
'test' version periodically until 2.0 became stable. Do you think this 
is a good idea, or is it more effort that it's worth?

3. Version 2.0 is a complete rewrite, and so the two versions have 
slightly different dependencies. How is the best way to manage this in 
the 'setup.hint' file? Should I use a superset of dependencies that 
covers both releases?

I'm not aware that an alpha version of 2.0 exists in any Linux 
distribution (most distros provide 0.4.3), so you may consider that 
2.0-alpha3 is not appropriate for Cygwin. However, even if we choose not 
to take the 'alpha' release at this stage, we will have to solve 
question (3) eventually (when the new 2.0 release becomes current).

Many thanks in advance for your advice,

Dave.

[1] http://www.keepassx.org/

Re: keepassx

[Yaakov (Cygwin/X)]

On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 00:46 +0000, David Stacey wrote:
> 1. keepassx is present in Cygwin Ports. Yaakov: Are you happy for 
> keepassx to be moved into the main Cygwin distro? If so, are you happy 
> for me to maintain it, or would you prefer to do so yourself?

You may take it.  I have modernized the build in git:

http://cygwin-ports.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=cygwin-ports/keepassx

I suggest you bump RELEASE to 2 and build it yourself, then proceed with
ITP.

> I'm not aware that an alpha version of 2.0 exists in any Linux 
> distribution (most distros provide 0.4.3), so you may consider that 
> 2.0-alpha3 is not appropriate for Cygwin. However, even if we choose not 
> to take the 'alpha' release at this stage, we will have to solve 
> question (3) eventually (when the new 2.0 release becomes current).

I don't generally bother with prereleases where a stable version exists.
If the major distros are using 0.4.3 (Fedora is among them, I just
checked), then I would just ship that and deal with 2.0 when it goes
stable.


Yaakov