Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 21:33:00 +0300 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to handle upgrade of libnotify when cups-client-1.4.8 is marked as broken Message-ID: <20110828183300.GX17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <20110828181356.GD277@magic.hamla.org> References: <4E5A48AC.6050201@eskk.nu> <20058.20743.791783.342355@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <BLU0-SMTP182102B9C96837517ECB6BB93150@phx.gbl> <20110828172651.GB277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828173059.GT17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20110828181356.GD277@magic.hamla.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--yP6PQUgJdmhVCFKJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 02:13:59PM -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote: > On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 20:30:59 +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: >=20 > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 01:26:51PM -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote: > > > On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 11:30:27 -0400, Carmel wrote: > > >=20 > > > > My question is what changed? It worked before updating "libnotify".= Is > > > > "libnotify" the culprit or "GNUTLS" or something else and why didn't > > > > anyone catch this problem sooner? > > >=20 > > > The chain of dependencies during the libnotify update prompted the > > > upgrade of cups. The latter's OpenSSL interfaces are explicitly > > > thread-safe, which GNU TLS is not. > > >=20 > > > > There appears to be a lot of material released lately that is either > > > > broken or requiring a considerable amount of manual intervention. > > > > Perhaps a moratorium (port freeze) should be considered until all of > > > > the outstanding problems have been corrected. > > >=20 > > > We are sorry for the inconvenience which is surely frustrating, but > > > freezing the tree because of this does not seem appropriate. > >=20 > > Might be, completely ignoring the option 'use gnutls' in cups ports, > > until it can be made working, will change everybody life to be easier. >=20 > What "might be"? >=20 > As already noted, the GNUTLS option now defaults to OFF and users are > warned (via the BROKEN construct) if it is selected.=20 Apparently, this have to be written explicitely. Users, who upgrade their ports, are not presented with the configuration dialog. Using automated tool like portupgrade, all you get is a list of the failed ports. After that, user needs to start investigation, spending his own time and possibly time of the people on list. Ignoring or removing the option makes the ports upgrade without user intervention. I am willing to spend some more time describing unobvious points of this consideration. --yP6PQUgJdmhVCFKJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk5aidsACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4gM+QCaA8vDEtVBOT3XunXuuGElJ7Gw g90AoICy1aMgIrNk6cBQs5ZLtJfD/ozO =YsJl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --yP6PQUgJdmhVCFKJ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110828183300.GX17489>