From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Jan 5 10:30:27 2017 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 D87CEC9FAF5 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 10:30:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from crest@rlwinm.de) Received: from smtp.rlwinm.de (smtp.rlwinm.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:201:31ef::e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A64881ECF for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 10:30:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from crest@rlwinm.de) Received: from crest.local (unknown [87.253.189.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.rlwinm.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7312B5DD3 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:30:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: From: Jan Bramkamp Message-ID: <34b66662-a2d7-706d-3653-e0ffc9bf81b2@rlwinm.de> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:30:24 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 10:30:27 -0000 On 04/01/2017 18:32, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install both samba44 > and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? > Or samba44 and KDE? > > If yes, then that sucks... Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the complexity. Are there any reasons other than saved build time to disable this dependency (e.g. a bad security track record/process, different licenses)?