Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:44:11 +0200 From: Jose M Rodriguez <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> To: Yarema <yds@CoolRat.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: splitting courier-authlib into master+slave ports Message-ID: <200504202144.12138.josemi@redesjm.local> In-Reply-To: <9F0C7E4FBA18BFD0B3946DFE@tuber.coolrat.org> References: <20050414111426.775f6afd.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20050420121254.34c59e53.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <9F0C7E4FBA18BFD0B3946DFE@tuber.coolrat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
El Wednesday 20 April 2005 20:27, Yarema escribi=F3: > --On Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:12:54 +0200 Oliver Lehmann > > <lehmann@ans-netz.de> wrote: > > Milan Obuch wrote: > >> On Tuesday 19 April 2005 17:30, Oliver Lehmann wrote: > >> > Jose M Rodriguez wrote: > >> > > Hope this may be on time. Can you consider work this? > >> > > > >> > > - maintain couier-auhlib just as a metaport selector. > >> > > - add a courier-authlib-base port > >> > > - maintain the courier-authlib-method ports, but working > >> > > against courier-authlib-base. > >> > > >> > That sounds cool. then OPTIONs could be put into the metaport. > >> > I'll work on this. > >> > >> I like this idea too. Actually I was trying to formulate tha same. > >> You were quicker :) > >> Milan > > > > Can you try the tar.gz once more? I uploaded an "adjusted" version > > ;) > > FWIW I'd like to weigh in with my opinion. I think this move to a > meta port just so we can have OPTIONS selectable dependencies does > little to improve usability. As I've argued before in an email to > Oliver there's little need to have more than one > courier-authlib-method port installed unless one is transitioning > from one auth-method to another or just experimenting. > Maybe, but you can trust me in this: have the base port and the=20 components selector in the same place it a bad design. > So why is it better to: > % cd courier-authlib && make config && make install > rather than just: > % cd courier-authlib-METHOD && make install > This is only about maintain courier-athlib 'working as before', and make=20 portupgrade cope with the transition. > (Yes, I know the 'make config' is not necessary ;) my point still > stands.) > > We're just adding unnecessary complexity just because we can. A > pkg-message in the base port (without OPTIONS) is sufficient to > indicate to the user that other method ports are available IMHO. > > The "adjusted" versions of courier-authlib as I presented it to > Oliver can be found at <http://yds.CoolRat.org/freebsd/>; > > The most recent one one incorporates some of the adjustments Oliver > made to his version. > > One difference between the courier-authlib-20050408.00.tgz version > and courier-authlib-20050420.00.tgz is that I make --with-authpam > part of the base port's CONFIGURE_ARGS. This prevents libauthpwd.so.0 > from being built and instead builds > lib/courier-authlib/libauthpam.so.0. authpwd is discouraged as per > <http://www.courier-mta.org/authlib/README_authlib.html>: > > NOTE: It might be tempting to throw in a towel and use authshadow or > authpwd if you cannot figure out how to install PAM support, however > that is not advisable. It is highly recommended to use authpam > wherever the PAM library is available. > We have a FreeBSD supported version without a pam library? I think no. > The authpwd module is also documented in the same README to use "the > C library's getpw() functions" which in turn are documented to be > made "made obsolete by getpwuid(3)" in the FreeBSD getpw(3) man page. > > So given the above two citations from both courier-authlib docs and > FreeBSD's docs why not just do away with authpam being optional and > make it the default part of the base package? > The rest is out of the scope of my little observation. <snip/> =2D- josemi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200504202144.12138.josemi>