Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 08:55:25 -0700 From: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> To: Nikolai Lifanov <lifanov@mail.lifanov.com> Cc: FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: freebsd-ports Digest, Vol 633, Issue 2 Message-ID: <CAN6yY1tmS4xh3imSRBPh7x-AAOr_XOfVC4Z6DSk0Y4UHEVUkNg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <559BD0BB.5080904@mail.lifanov.com> References: <mailman.77.1436270401.56359.freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> <559BD0BB.5080904@mail.lifanov.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Nikolai Lifanov <lifanov@mail.lifanov.com>
wrote:
> On 07/07/15 08:00, freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org wrote:
> > On 07/07/15 13:45, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> >> > On 7/07/2015 3:31 PM, Gregory Orange wrote:
> >>> >> I don't know if this is a helpful forum to raise it, but I would
> like to
> >>> >> request that SASL be enabled in the default build options for
> >>> >> mail/postfix. I am attempting to use binary-only packages wherever
> >>> >> possible, and so far this is the first where I currently have to
> build
> >>> >> it myself.
> >> >
> >> > If consensus can't be achieved or there is a good reason not to enable
> >> > this by default, then postfix-sasl as a slave port may be a desirable
> >> > alternative, which I believe has existed in the past.
> >> >
> >> > +1 on security related options enabled by default
> >> > +1 on OPTIONS_DEFAULT matching upstream defaults
> >> > -1 on OPTIONS_DEFAULT introducing large dependency sets
> > I am encouraged to hear there are a couple of different options which
> > could be explored. As I have gone and built the package, I have
> > discovered that I do not actually use the SASL option, but the DOVECOT2
> > option. I now have a couple of questions:
> >
> > 1. What is the difference between DOVECOT{,2} and simply SASL? Is SASL
> > actually Cyrus SASL? After reading the Makefile, I'm not sure.
> >
> > 2. If I actually want the DOVECOT2 and not the SASL option, is it likely
> > I am going to be able to (advocate for and) get a binary package from
> > upstream servers at some point? How can the range of options be handled?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Greg.
>
> I +1 this request. I also use mail/postfix with DOVECOT2 option and this
> is the only blocker for me to use upstream packages on this system.
> Postfix users generally run Dovecot already anyway, so it removes
> another package from the mix as opposed to the SASL option. Cyrus SASL
> is yet another thing to configure separately as well.
>
> - Nikolai Lifanov
>
As long as nothing depends on postfix, there is no reason not to use
packages for all other ports, lock postfix, and manually
re-build/re-install it when it is updated.
"pkg lock postfix" to lock
"pkg unlock postfix && portmaster postfix && pkg lock postfix" to update.
You can confirm that nothing depends on postfix with "pkg info -r postfix".
This is how I keep FreeBSD up to date on all production systems. I don't
use DOVECOT2. SASL pulls in Cyrus SASL.
--
Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1tmS4xh3imSRBPh7x-AAOr_XOfVC4Z6DSk0Y4UHEVUkNg>