Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:47:09 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: d@delphij.net Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, delphij@FreeBSD.ORG, umq@ueo.co.jp, Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net>, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> Subject: Re: Unable to configure dirmngr after openldap upgrade Message-ID: <4D911DFD.8090404@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4D911D59.3000403@delphij.net> References: <20110328194251.9F2FE1CC0C@ptavv.es.net> <4D90F43B.7050606@delphij.net> <4D90F63F.7000901@FreeBSD.org> <4D90FB97.1020208@delphij.net> <4D9119FB.6090604@FreeBSD.org> <4D911D59.3000403@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/28/2011 16:44, Xin LI wrote: > 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. I think an UPDATING entry is a good idea, however I think that a slave port would also be useful. Just remove FETCH from the current/master port, and add a slave with FETCH enabled. That way whatever (few?) ports that rely on that can change their dependency, and the rest of the users won't be affected. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D911DFD.8090404>