Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:02:34 -0400 From: Yarema <yds@CoolRat.org> To: Jose M Rodriguez <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: splitting courier-authlib into master+slave ports Message-ID: <F3BFBD13A5709B3D3901C07C@[192.168.1.73]> In-Reply-To: <200504210857.01432.josemi@redesjm.local> References: <20050414111426.775f6afd.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <200504202144.12138.josemi@redesjm.local> <B21804CCF113A1FF6814894C@tuber.coolrat.org> <200504210857.01432.josemi@redesjm.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:57 AM +0200 Jose M Rodriguez=20 <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> wrote: > 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 > courier-authlib-base _must_ have pw/pam auth without options. Only > select what type by libpam presence or OS_VERSION. I think we're in agreement here. Because there is no OS_VERSION officially = supported by the ports system which does not have PAM in the base system. FreeBSD 2.2.x =3D=3D no PAM in the base system and has not been officially=20 supported by the ports tree since 4.x went STABLE. FreeBSD 3.x =3D=3D does have PAM in the base system, but as far as I know = port=20 authors are not required to maintain comparability with 3.x either. FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x and 6-CURRENT all have PAM in the base system. So there's no need to check OS_VERSION since all versions of FreeBSD >=3D = 3.x=20 have PAM in the base system. And the ports tree is only required to=20 support 4.x or greater, so it's safe to assume that PAM always exists in=20 the base OS_VERSION. > Remember, this is about split in binary-compatible ports + metaport. No > options or knobs may live in courier-authlib-base or > 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 > sunday. Before you do take a look at <http://yds.CoolRat.org/freebsd/courier-authlib-20050420.01.tgz>; Regards, --=20 Yarema http://yds.CoolRat.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F3BFBD13A5709B3D3901C07C>