Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 06:47:56 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 241347] security/sssd: Update to 1.16.4 Message-ID: <bug-241347-7788-A8qA3JVI8a@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-241347-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-241347-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D241347 --- Comment #14 from Phillip R. Jaenke <prj@rootwyrm.com> --- No worries on that, we all have lives. Since SSSD has *always* been a "special handling required" port, I think the only real question here is whether to ship as-is (which means default build= s of dependencies will leave it non-functioning) or update samba410 to use MIT default (that's a timur@ call and as MIT is experimental probably a bad ide= a.) Considering all those moving pieces, I think we've re-exposed a shortcoming= in ports infrastructure that isn't going to be resolved today - or this quarte= r, and probably not next year. Once building clean is confirmed and function is confirmed when dependencies are built to suit, commit it as is. Then exclud= e it from official pkgbuilds (maybe RESTRICTED?) so that users have to engage th= eir brains and build everything the right way. Once we have the key portions here, I'm happy to take up the torch of writi= ng a pkg message explaining to users what they need to do to produce a working setup. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-241347-7788-A8qA3JVI8a>