From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 10 03:48:03 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F8437B401 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 03:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.fillmore-labs.com (lima.fillmore-labs.com [62.138.193.83]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C19043F75 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 03:48:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com) Received: from atlantis.wireless.fillmore-labs.com ([192.168.161.242] helo=fillmore-labs.com) by mx2.fillmore-labs.com with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.20) id 19aYy1-000NHq-5M; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:48:01 +0200 Message-ID: <3F0D4458.10005@fillmore-labs.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:47:52 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christian Kratzer References: <3F0A09E7.9080502@fillmore-labs.com> <20030710114206.M84774@majakka.cksoft.de> In-Reply-To: <20030710114206.M84774@majakka.cksoft.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 Organization: Fillmore Labs GmbH X-Complaints-To: abuse@fillmore-labs.com cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/54202: [MAINTAINER PATCH] unify port net/openldap20 with net/openldap22 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:48:04 -0000 Hi Christian, thanks for your reply. Christian Kratzer wrote: > Hi, > > a couple of comments ... > > On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > >>- unify port net/openldap20 with net/openldap22 (easier to maintain) > > you seem to be very active with the openldap ports currently and I would > suggest that you take over the openldap21 port from me for consistency > purposes. Feel free to update yourself as the maintainer if you like. If you trust me to maintain the port and really want to give up maintainership, I'll be honored to take it. I'll try to keep the ports structurally similar, to easy maintainership and migration. Thats what PR ports/54202 is about. >>- install additional documentation >>- don't install .la files >>- make start/stop scripts compatible with net/openldap22 >>- better package building >>- improved installation messages >>- package name is openldap again - should have never been renamed > > it happened when my openldap21 port was committed in February this year. > I had submitted the port with packagename openldap and version 2.1.x but > there was some discussion with the committers that policy was changing and > the new scheme was now preferred. Ah.. I didn't know that. Can you please point me to some documentation on why this policy was changed and what the advantages are? Perhaps I should change net/openldap22 then, to keep things consistent. > Of course I would prefer changing back but this will break dependent ports > once again. If we change back I would very much like this to stay and not > be changed back again. Perhaps this should be documented in the Makefiles. Hmmm.... I thought it was just an oversight. I'll post an extra message to ports@ to discuss this. > I would think that the maintainers of dependent ports would not bee too happy > to change the openldap dependencies every couple of months. For sure. But a change in the portname does not imply an source code changes in the dependend ports, no dependency would break. And I think not adhering to standards causes for more confusion in the long run. >>- bump portrevision >> >>Differences between net/openldap20 and net/openldap22: > > openldap22 is still alpha and openldap21 is the currently preferred > version. openldap20 although still in use is EOL and should be depreciated. Agreed, that is what OpenLDAP does on its web page. I only pointed out that it is important to maintain the net/openldap20 port as long as so many ports use it, and I'm not in a position to tell other port maintainers what port they should depend on. > Even if openldap22 could currently be ok we should not induce openldap > newbies to go with the lastest and greatest alpha code that could break > any time. Remeber the problems with the berkeley db backend and with > threads in early openldap2.1 releases. Thinks can break from one day > to another and rebuilding all your dependencies to go back can be quite > stressing ... Hey, I didn't. I felt this port was important to help people integrate OpenLDAP 2.2 as early as possible, to ease migration when OpenLDAP 2.2 is ready, sorry if I made a contrary impression. But until know nobody had a problem with alpha ports in the ports tree (see the mail/cyrus-imapd22 port), so I wonder if a warning in pkg-descr is really beneficial. > Greetings > Christian Regards Oliver