Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 22:41:57 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> To: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Cc: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ports/144597: security/openssh-portable fails to compile with KERBEROS enabled Message-ID: <4E210885.3090906@missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <4E20CD21.4070800@missouri.edu> References: <4E1E72E5.10803@missouri.edu> <20110715232327.GD24288@DataIX.net> <4E20CD21.4070800@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/15/2011 06:28 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > 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 then work on it from there, otherwise its a loss of time for an outdated 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. I found some possible maintainers of this port at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/150493. If either of them reply, then I'll pick it up again.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E210885.3090906>