Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 07:23:06 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 241347] security/sssd: Update to 1.16.4 Message-ID: <bug-241347-7788-UjpoCfDYx0@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-241347-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-241347-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D241347 Rick <vrwmiller@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vrwmiller@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Rick <vrwmiller@gmail.com> --- Reconsider defining an explicit Samba dependency. This factored into LDB conflicts between security/sssd and net/samba4* in the first place. Ports defines behavior for selecting the Samba version by setting a default that = can be over-ridden via DEFAULT_VERSIONS, which puts greater control in the users hands. Explicit dependency mitigates current behavior, but when net/samba411 is ad= ded to ports and users want to install 4.11 as opposed to 4.10, it requires overriding SMB_LIB_DEPENDS instead of using DEFAULT_VERSIONS like "DEFAULT_VERSIONS=3Dsamba=3D4.11". Addressing the current failing behavior is achievable through a note in Makefile or UPDATING explaining net/samba410 to be the minimum Samba version required for SMB support. So, users know to deploy a configuration similar = to that described in bug #238465. Also, the SSSD project is shipping version 2.2. Are there compelling reasons for not updating to the project's most recent version, or at least adding i= t as a new port, security/sssd2 for example? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-241347-7788-UjpoCfDYx0>