[xmonad] [xmonad-contrib] XMonad.Prompt.Pass patch

[ardumont]

Hello Zev,

Zev Weiss writes:

> On Aug 29, 2014, at 9:26 AM, ardumont <eniotna.t at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Here is the latest patch according to remarks.
>>
>> <new-xmonad-prompt-patch.dpatch>
>> Below I detail some steps I took.
>>
>> Hope everything is alright.
>>
>> Thanks for your time.
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> Much as I hate to be a wet blanket here

I learned a new expression, thanks.

> (and obviously don't speak from a position of any authority or
> influence on xmonad), I'd just like to voice my from-the-sidelines
> preference that this patch *not* be applied.

It would have been good to hear this before I patched it thrice.
:D

>
> This is not due to any objection to the patch itself, nor to the
> functionality it adds (which I think could be quite genuinely useful),

Good.

>but rather to the 'pass' tool itself.  From the description on its web
>  site (http://www.passwordstore.org/), it seems in my opinion rather
>  poorly designed.  The biggest (or at least most immediately obvious)
>  problem is that keeping separate files/directories for each password
>  (which I guess it doesn't strictly require, but is clearly geared
>  toward) is a *massive* and completely unnecessary information leak.

Do not use it online then.

>  Further, its dependencies
>  (http://git.zx2c4.com/password-store/tree/README#n15) seem to me
>  rather bulky for something that should/could be a very simple,
>  lightweight thing.

I think it simply aligns with the the Unix' sphilosophy to reuse what's already
there. Using brick composition to provide higher functionalities.

In that way of seeing thing, this sounds standard to me.

> (Also, the hubris

Yet another new expression, thanks.

> of its author immediately declaring it "standard" is
> rather off-putting, and actually kind of laughable given how
> obviously-not-a-standard it is --

It's all perception.
For example, I for one, dislike the term `obvious` (even more in my
native language which sounds pretentious).
So I become suspicious when people uses it (and you used it twice
already).

I am sorry but nothing for me is that `apparent` except that you sound pretty much like
what you described.
Like I said perception.

In any case, how is it apparent for you that this is not standard?

It's free software, and it's available for multiple GNU/Linux distributions (even some are not
referenced, NixOS for one), Mac OS X and FreeBSD.
(from its dependencies, it seems there may be even ways to make it work
on windows platform, though it's not referenced.)

Yet other qualities that sounds standard to me.

> perhaps that's just some dry humour,
> but I get the sense it's meant sincerely.)
>
> If an alternate backend that didn't have these problems could be used
> to provide this xmonad interface instead I'd be all for it

I provided something to start with, you may provide an alternate backend
(if you know some or intend to write some) from there.

The code is attached to this thread if you want to improve on it,
feel free.

> -- but as is I'm opposed to it if only on the grounds of it serving to
> encourage further adoption of 'pass',

It is not my intention to encourage further adoption of pass.

I thought this use case was very interesting and tried it.
I got confident about it being useful.

And as it did not exist on xmonad-contrib, acted on it to permit others
to benefit from it.

> which I simply think is a bad
> idea.
>
>
> Thanks,

Thanks too

> Zev Weiss

Cheers,
--
@ardumont