Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:44:25 -0700 From: Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, delphij@FreeBSD.ORG, umq@ueo.co.jp, d@delphij.net, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> Subject: Re: Unable to configure dirmngr after openldap upgrade Message-ID: <4D911D59.3000403@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <4D9119FB.6090604@FreeBSD.org> References: <20110328194251.9F2FE1CC0C@ptavv.es.net> <4D90F43B.7050606@delphij.net> <4D90F63F.7000901@FreeBSD.org> <4D90FB97.1020208@delphij.net> <4D9119FB.6090604@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 03/28/11 16:30, Doug Barton wrote: > On 03/28/2011 14:20, Xin LI wrote: >> On 03/28/11 13:57, Doug Barton wrote: >>> On 03/28/2011 13:48, Xin LI wrote: >>>> On 03/28/11 12:42, Kevin Oberman wrote: >>>>> Yup. openldap-client-2.4.24 does fine. Looks like a bug in 2.4.25. >>>>> I'll >>>>> take a look at CHANGES and see if I can figure out what broke the >>>>> inclusion of fetch(3) support if I get a bit of time. >>>> >>>> It seems that libldif now referenced the fetch support, and ironically >>>> it seem be a bug but a feature :( >>>> >>>> I have decided to disable FETCH support from now on, since it's likely >>>> to bring more problems. >>>> >>>> (If you would prefer to fix the problem for this specific problem, I >>>> think adding a '-lfetch' would be sufficient; but, it seems to be >>>> undesirable to depend fetch(3) unconditionally for all programs that >>>> uses openldap). >> >>> I know next to nothing about how the openldap-client stuff works, so I'm >>> sorry if these questions are silly. :) The biggest question is, does >>> dirmngr compile after your change? The other question is that the only >>> reason I have openldap installed at all is so that gnupg can use it to >>> fetch keys from ldap keyservers. Will this still work when the FETCH >>> option is no longer present? >> >> hmm... how do I test fetching from an ldap keyserver? > > I'll save you the trouble. :) I got your latest update and tested both > scenarios myself, and the answer is that they both work. > > So now the question is, should the FETCH OPTION be removed altogether? I > imagine that a lot of users will be at least as confused as I, and word > is that PRs for other ports are already showing up. I think that's being used in some ldap utilities so it might broke some applications that makes use of that? I'll add a note in UPDATING to document this. Cheers, - -- Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJNkR1YAAoJEATO+BI/yjfBqaoH/0fOftHLInATGWxi9/JxTrv2 K0/SViPM7z9QRhPs8bpb1OnsQQvD7gwp/siz6TRkGMmTQcRc41ezmHmmX3wyhC27 mWQ6dx2BXNHJDATBcwiqAvQnUlIv5BBLwWqHRqiVvPc1k4ecqzoWSVACPzWNL4c0 LwlOgnE0dXwShB8ML5/4EJhAAsrtaaOveEDGT+WL6CmeDZzh/bc5K1g3qYHcmeBb qUD/crMrE3CfZAOd6qYY6L4gMw1A2Ed30DrjtKiW/4F807zBnmKVmH+5+YheIe9p McsHlHpxNtbN49A6pXTsYOhLD8ZyJIm6O/Znm6a1UcOi2pXBC7FWVuzcot/LJ1I= =a5f5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D911D59.3000403>