From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 28 23:47:27 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2919F106567C; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:47:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 65-241-43-5.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DBDF1522DC; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:47:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4D911DFD.8090404@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:47:09 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110319 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: d@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> In-Reply-To: <4D911D59.3000403@delphij.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, delphij@FreeBSD.ORG, umq@ueo.co.jp, Xin LI , Kevin Oberman Subject: Re: Unable to configure dirmngr after openldap upgrade X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:47:27 -0000 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/