From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 9 16:31:39 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438441065677 for ; Fri, 9 May 2008 16:31:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nino80@gmail.com) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.233]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16B7B8FC0C for ; Fri, 9 May 2008 16:31:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nino80@gmail.com) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so2166348rvf.43 for ; Fri, 09 May 2008 09:31:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=fDL4VwcWyEegtEyTyDdaj1Yz9QNBYQIu2ASLQ3B9s3c=; b=Mx7EjGnuNtu3Z3gttHxBi/fyZJex+9zDBZQN6Sljl7OV59crqlgsnT1WvqaASsgjtJ0ZaS0yUTt/NNmLFmCoHKYU0SSQ349Rn2/gExU+dmWivu6Ar1DW/Y9OEhh7hbYNRCY2EEkeXGj3eIwUhfkEowOCzYcgqYhO6oPxvU5AWWs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=OW/UIzsD7TiW2YRywqnIoEyFsWYkcMF/dUxoBkpa4C2Pd9ps6FK6RBz1o9/+T7txbR5ycDBmVaupN5hFdW/7v++xaFw1huaTNnChP1Rpo1dSOImVgzq47x+W9DwSJW5dp6YfL1YauK6MWnZVOqe5Vi/wBBphb98Q/Ks5bvSXf04= Received: by 10.140.164.1 with SMTP id m1mr2259855rve.69.1210350698568; Fri, 09 May 2008 09:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.28.10 with HTTP; Fri, 9 May 2008 09:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <92bcbda50805090931v2bf4308brac6e63943a6e9956@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 18:31:38 +0200 From: "n j" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200805091536.07612.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <92bcbda50805090615l7d1e0ac1r947ec9f31e7a2b9f@mail.gmail.com> <200805091536.07612.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> Subject: Re: Makefile OPTIONS (was: Re: Apache 2.2.8 + mod_authnz_ldap) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 16:31:39 -0000 > If this is a fixed dependency, then it's a bug in the port's Makefile. If it's > not set in stone (i.e.: mod_authnz_ldap could also work with > mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap), then applying the logic you suggest, would kill > the option to use mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap. > > Set in stone would mean, "if there is a port mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap, or > enough people have complained that they cannot use > mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap, even though there's not a port for it". It seems that the main problem arises from usage of OPTIONS. If I had specified WITH_LDAP_MODULES (a category), both modules (ldap and authnz_ldap) would have been included. If I had specified WITH_LDAP, according to 'make show-options', it would have implied the option WITH_LDAP_MODULES. However, when modules are selected through OPTIONS dialog, AUTHNZ_LDAP means just AUTHNZ_LDAP and LDAP means just LDAP. Theoretically, this is not an error in port's Makefile, rather something that gives even more flexibility to the user. However, the same can't be said for user-friendliness. And to comment on your message, I see no other LDAP-related options in Apache which would make this a fixed dependency. Regards, -- Nino