Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:28:33 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> To: Jason Hellenthal <jhell@DataIX.net> 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: <4E20CD21.4070800@missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <20110715232327.GD24288@DataIX.net> References: <4E1E72E5.10803@missouri.edu> <20110715232327.GD24288@DataIX.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/15/2011 06:23 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:39:01PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >> Hey people, >> >> I was looking over old unresolved PR's. I came across this one: >> >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/144597 >> >> When I sent a message to the submitter of the PR, the email bounced back >> suggesting that the submitter no longer uses that email address. >> >> I don't think it would be too hard to make the port build under the >> circumstances he describes. But is ANYONE interested? Would it be >> worth investing effort to make this work? >> >> Note that the port has ports@ as its maintainer, so it doesn't look like >> there is a lot of interest. >> >> Thanks, Stephen >> >> P.S. This one is related: >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/57498 >> >> Is this a big bag of worms? >> >> 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 then work on it from there, otherwise its a loss of time for an outdated 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?=/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) All these are good ideas, but I am not the person to do it. I don't use this software. I'm going to relinquish responsibility for this PR.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E20CD21.4070800>