From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 28 18:45:46 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC894106566B for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 18:45:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sahil@tandon.net) Received: from spartan.hamla.org (spartan.hamla.org [206.251.255.30]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05368FC12 for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 18:45:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spartan.hamla.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A22C4170FE; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:46:14 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tandon.net; h= user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type :content-type:mime-version:references:reply-to:message-id :subject:subject:from:from:date:date:received; s=aegis; t= 1314557174; bh=U0GZWPJzrnUUyVQv7EmaVQ9NYbqQ2LBl6Kq9JYhgsH8=; b=V +EIcU1AzhN25xQKqhsa/Lpvi2Xt9Ew3hOSlleBrzrDcNVPN/HPOTrytonrT20a8c 06E7difTMsUUCodawv69VPWbv1OLgIbvXuFc+g8wefZY8MyHXCSuvsSPPd3qTL+I rRjk3RBHgrHyWtxV2WnN3kfqUww8jJt4lSRfPZXKTs= X-Virus-Scanned: by ClamAV at spartan.hamla.org Received: from spartan.hamla.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (spartan.hamla.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with LMTP id vdFdJWPi1rtS; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:45:42 -0400 From: Sahil Tandon To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110828184542.GE277@magic.hamla.org> References: <4E5A48AC.6050201@eskk.nu> <20058.20743.791783.342355@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20110828172651.GB277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828173059.GT17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20110828181356.GD277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828183300.GX17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110828183300.GX17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: dinoex@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: How to handle upgrade of libnotify when cups-client-1.4.8 is marked as broken X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 18:45:46 -0000 On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 21:33:00 +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > 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: > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > We are sorry for the inconvenience which is surely frustrating, but > > > > freezing the tree because of this does not seem appropriate. > > > > > > Might be, completely ignoring the option 'use gnutls' in cups ports, > > > until it can be made working, will change everybody life to be easier. > > > > What "might be"? > > > > As already noted, the GNUTLS option now defaults to OFF and users are > > warned (via the BROKEN construct) if it is selected. > > 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 sorry users have had to "intervene" in managing their systems, but rather than removing the option entirely, I prefer mandree@'s more structural suggestion of re-prompting the user when defaults change. In the meantime, a note in UPDATING about explicitly disabling the GNUTLS option for cups ports is probably appropriate. I have copied the maintainer in hopes that he will consider it. > I am willing to spend some more time describing unobvious points of > this consideration. No, the consideration is trivial and does not need explaining; I just had trouble parsing your English. -- Sahil Tandon