Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:57:00 +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: <200504210857.01432.josemi@redesjm.local> In-Reply-To: <B21804CCF113A1FF6814894C@tuber.coolrat.org> References: <20050414111426.775f6afd.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <200504202144.12138.josemi@redesjm.local> <B21804CCF113A1FF6814894C@tuber.coolrat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
El Jueves, 21 de Abril de 2005 01:48, Yarema escribi=F3: > --On Wednesday, April 20, 2005 21:44:11 +0200 Jose M Rodriguez > > <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> wrote: > > El Wednesday 20 April 2005 20:27, Yarema escribi=F3: > >> 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 > > components selector in the same place it a bad design. > <snip/> > > > > 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? > > Yes, we do have "a FreeBSD supported version without a pam library" > installed if only the base port is installed. I made this happen to > for the sake of completness and now I'm presenting arguments that it > is a bad idea. Thing is that the courier-authlib port, as it is > committed NOW, will install the no PAM version "libauthpwd.so.0" if > NONE of the OPTIONS are selected. Yet the PLIST in the current > version does not include "libauthpwd.so.0". > No. It isn't the base port, it's the base system. I think that=20 courier-authlib-base _must_ have pw/pam auth without options. Only=20 select what type by libpam presence or OS_VERSION. Remember, this is about split in binary-compatible ports + metaport. No=20 options or knobs may live in courier-authlib-base or=20 courier-authlib-<method>. Only the courier-authlib metaport will have this. I can't work on this until weekend, but I'll try to have a candidate on=20 sunday. =2D- josemi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200504210857.01432.josemi>