Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:52:46 -0700 From: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> To: <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: freebsd-ports Digest, Vol 633, Issue 2 Message-ID: <52ff82841f6ba0e625553e5f2faf4845@ultimatedns.net> 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, 07 Jul 2015 09:14:35 -0400 Nikolai Lifanov <lifanov@mail.lifanov.com>
wrote
WARNING: I'm catching up on my email. So if this has already been
addressed, please direct to /dev/null
> 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
Then do you're fellow postfix users a favor, and be a hero. Create
a sub port: postfix-dovecot[0-9].
Honestly, sub ports are dead simple by comparison to a standard port.
Most of your work has already been accomplished by the parent port.
I'm tempted to do it myself. But I'm at ~60 ports already. 8-()
All the best.
--Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52ff82841f6ba0e625553e5f2faf4845>