Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:23:27 -0400 From: Jason Hellenthal <jhell@DataIX.net> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> Cc: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ports/144597: security/openssh-portable fails to compile with KERBEROS enabled Message-ID: <20110715232327.GD24288@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <4E1E72E5.10803@missouri.edu> References: <4E1E72E5.10803@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--8X7/QrJGcKSMr1RN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:39:01PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > Hey people, >=20 > I was looking over old unresolved PR's. I came across this one: >=20 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3Dports/144597 >=20 > When I sent a message to the submitter of the PR, the email bounced back= =20 > suggesting that the submitter no longer uses that email address. >=20 > I don't think it would be too hard to make the port build under the=20 > circumstances he describes. But is ANYONE interested? Would it be=20 > worth investing effort to make this work? >=20 > Note that the port has ports@ as its maintainer, so it doesn't look like= =20 > there is a lot of interest. >=20 > Thanks, Stephen >=20 > P.S. This one is related: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3Dports/57498 >=20 > Is this a big bag of worms? >=20 > I can see that seems to be fixed, for example, in mail/fetchmail. Considering that the port version is 5.2p1 and the current version in stable/8 is 5.4p1 and greater than that for HEAD I would say it would be much more of a benefit to get the port updated to the latest version and then work on it from there, otherwise its a loss of time for an outdated version. Last time I looked at this port it was a mess with a collection of third party patches from all over the place which I think lead to a discrepancy in the update of the port but that's just my opinion. It would be nice to see a simplified version of this port so it isn't such a monster to update and have an option for a user supplied patches directory that stands outside of the tree (user configured path) and it just blindly attempts to apply what is in that directory. I think this would help slim it down a little so it can consistently be bumped to a new revision without hassle. Something like: # Defaults to /usr/ports/patches unless path is user specified. WITH_PATCH_TREE?=3D/usr/ports/patches /usr/ports/patches/ # Distributed empty. everything else user created. |-- net | `-- wireshark `-- security |-- gnupg `-- openssh-portable Things like this would certainly make it easier for a consistent user supplied patch to be kept local for build machines. I can't count the times on 2 hands and 2 feet that I wanted to patch a port with a local patch and had to continuously cp(1) a patch back to a ports tree using rsync(1) --8X7/QrJGcKSMr1RN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD) Comment: http://bit.ly/0x89D8547E iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOIMvuAAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+6R8H/0h/HY3FRidwLs0DX2k6R1W2 H5X4FQmhldspNQFbXkps6kN7gii/zY0UeoV7YCgSMRqjIMIz+mbQb1lQG7DZA9GE t0ygWSHVqPX8uZtWTG7wJIf0rsfYgZImlWtcNIOg2peUhqY/gKZ7LRMyeQEAdKBk 5S3Al+n/tG6y+J0V/ZOtt+8ApytmmQQCu5RjcD4UG4EuWEDVfbjhW4s7yOdVM67T MTo96HJJMomlkCn8FLNMrFc/YZOsM/0++qMpLzEbkg/zlcXBo7xH0gYCO2A0uBiW PWUwKkA5dLdTALptcEMPahfuYKGYRcSSa0Z3HPEo4mxmAYi6+TznSno7KxkDGZo= =vrkB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8X7/QrJGcKSMr1RN--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110715232327.GD24288>