From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 3 13:15:48 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E4910656AB for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 13:15:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: from syn.atarininja.org (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.60.158]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BF18FC24 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 13:15:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by syn.atarininja.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 350555C3B; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:15:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:15:47 -0400 From: Wesley Shields To: Yarema Message-ID: <20090903131546.GA45221@atarininja.org> References: <20090827131800.191378ee@gumby.homeunix.com> <4A982DC9.7050608@CoolRat.org> <20090829181122.GA22669@atarininja.org> <200909021519.41950.mel.flynn+fbsd.ports@mailing.thruhere.net> <4A9FB023.7030703@CoolRat.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A9FB023.7030703@CoolRat.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: Mel Flynn , John Marshall , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dovecot Sieve port switched from CMU Sieve to Dovecot 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: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:15:48 -0000 On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 08:01:39AM -0400, Yarema wrote: > Mel Flynn wrote: > > On Saturday 29 August 2009 20:11:22 Wesley Shields wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 03:19:37PM -0400, Yarema wrote: > > > >>> I was previously overruled by a committer when I filed a PR to default > >>> ManageSieve to ON. IIRC, POLA was sited as the reason. I'm still of > >>> the opinion that the ManageSieve patch to the main dovecot port should > >>> default to ON for the following reasons: > >>> > >>> - with the ManageSieve patch built into the package it becomes possible > >>> for users of binary packages to just install the dovecot-sieve and > >>> dovecot-managesieve ports and have them work. As it stands now anyone > >>> who wants to use ManageSieve has to build the dovecot port from source. > >>> So it doesn't even make sense to have a binary package of > >>> dovecot-managesieve unless the ManageSieve patch is built into the > >>> dovecot package by default as well. > >>> > >>> - the ManageSieve patch does not add much bulk to the package. Those > >>> who do not use ManageSieve can simply ignore it or if they build from > >>> source can disable it. Either way from the perspective of those who do > >>> not use ManageSieve nothing really changes (thus POLA is not violated). > >>> > >>> - and finally there would be fewer broken PRs filed without the distinfo > >>> for the ManageSieve patch included. > >>> > >>> In my opinion it seems not having the binary dovecot-managesieve package > >>> "just work" is more of a POLA violation than having an extra > >>> README.managesieve and related dovecot.conf sections installed by > >>> default in the main dovecot port. > >> I have no problems marking that option as on by default since it will > >> mean that the managesieve port can be usefully packaged, while not > >> bloating the port at all. > > To further this issue in the "right" direction, I've investigated the bloat, > > using a slave port: > > PORTNAME= dovecot > > PKGNAMESUFFIX= -withsieve > > CATEGORIES= mail ipv6 > > MASTERDIR= ${.CURDIR}/../../mail/dovecot > > CONFLICTS= dovecot-1* > > > > .include "${MASTERDIR}/Makefile" > > .if defined(WITHOUT_MANAGESIEVE) > > .undef WITHOUT_MANAGESIEVE > > .endif > > WITH_MANAGESIEVE= yes > > > > Result: > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2626479 Sep 2 05:05 dovecot-1.2.4.tbz > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2626719 Sep 2 05:04 dovecot-withsieve-1.2.4.tbz > > > > I think more bytes have been wasted on discussing this, then it adds to the > > port. Also, I've left it off, thinking "I'll add this later or just add the > > package", because the OPTION framework does not really have enough room to > > specify "You have to tick this option to ON if you want to be able to add > > dovecot-managesieve port later", so yes, POLA was violated by not having it on > > by default and the description should probably read something like "Set to off > > if you never want managesieve support". > > OK then, Wesley, would you mind defaulting the MANAGESIEVE option to > "on" and closing PR/138300? Which is definitely approved, though we'll > most likely have to remove this new patch once it's rolled into the next > release upstream. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/138300 The patch from ports/138300 will be committed today, along with defaulting MANAGESIEVE to on. > I don't believe we need to bump PORTREVISION for either of these changes > since it only affects GSSAPI users and/or binary package users. But if > you feel PORTREVISION ought to be bumped up, then so be it. I can roll > a new patch set if need be and tack it on to the above mentioned PR or > file a new one. But as Mel puts it we're using up more bytes in this > thread than is gonna end up in the port after all is said and done.. :) PORTREVISION will be bumped because it does change the default package and fixes a bug. -- WXS