From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Tue Jul 7 15:55:27 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100EF9963DF for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:55:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: from mail-oi0-x22d.google.com (mail-oi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9D0E1033 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:55:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: by oiaf66 with SMTP id f66so113131298oia.3 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2015 08:55:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6HhmuNuh9vpGHwfqUcCnlQinz/K1MZ0ZSpE9lKy6Xfw=; b=UmNuikTgnY0brG7rzobhbjjS489n2kcVyDwmjGNuyeHpMsXmQakYXlGe/V+O7YppL8 smlA4aJnV2v2aT/H2UOVlK92mF8oCjb7qTMx9Tahdrg45rqTH6hc8eXaMxPsFhKStwG2 b4Wv6gpE+NLAUnnLMH2ITpEt195w1hCvqzQ7WFw58GUcHOlnUSXjwiupeHYZ1eFgrQG9 ULE/9oTmhH3mcAD2PwlWnxgXlkLkQn+OHHZm+DZX5yVRKyswp3qn+5LnbjYfJmnzggYP SUGfRUAFKLKSEZpOfM4y1DIJHt29nn2pFzcrTkTdSFkbzQSAxUVVB+WquQVq2o2U758n 7xjQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.58.136 with SMTP id r8mr4924808oeq.30.1436284525998; Tue, 07 Jul 2015 08:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Sender: kob6558@gmail.com Received: by 10.202.221.69 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 08:55:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <559BD0BB.5080904@mail.lifanov.com> References: <559BD0BB.5080904@mail.lifanov.com> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 08:55:25 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: cebROjLmhzA1vyBXVFHy5YapWoI Message-ID: Subject: Re: freebsd-ports Digest, Vol 633, Issue 2 From: Kevin Oberman To: Nikolai Lifanov Cc: FreeBSD Ports ML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 15:55:27 -0000 On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Nikolai Lifanov 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