Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:48:42 +0100 From: Franco Fichtner <franco@lastsummer.de> To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: Jan Bramkamp <crest@rlwinm.de>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client Message-ID: <6DB678CD-572C-4E88-9009-3E95032B9AF3@lastsummer.de> In-Reply-To: <587414A3.1010206@quip.cz> References: <c798f1e9-92f0-1d2a-32e4-46dad59f05d0@FreeBSD.org> <34b66662-a2d7-706d-3653-e0ffc9bf81b2@rlwinm.de> <5874135B.4000900@quip.cz> <587414A3.1010206@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 9 Jan 2017, at 11:54 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote:
>=20
> I don't need SASL for LDAP client, but somebody messed up ports tree =
with WANT_OPENLDAP_SASL which is for users and not maintainers:
>=20
> # WANT_OPENLDAP_SASL
> # - User-defined variable to depend upon =
SASL-enabled OpenLDAP
> # client. Must NOT be set in a port =
Makefile.
This note was added two days ago and it's simply not correct,
and/or overcome by events as it is against the common practice
in the tree *and* adhering to it would break currently working
ports.
OpenLDAP needs framework improvements of the sort that gssapi
or ssl received, but we have yet to hear from the maintainer of
OpenLDAP on the matter.
So far, there was a single answer on the suggestion to unify
SASL into OpenLDAP as a default option, to be taken out by avid
self-made port builders when they are sure they don't need it
and don't break their ports. The plus would be no more
package name changes of the sort openldap-{sasl-,}client and
the dependency tracking issues associated with having two
ports clash with each other, because they are "same same but
different".
Cheers,
Franco=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6DB678CD-572C-4E88-9009-3E95032B9AF3>