Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:55:32 -0800 From: David Thiel <lx@freebsd.org> To: Benjamin Podszun <benjamin.podszun@gmail.com> Cc: ports <ports@freebsd.org>, Kurt Jaeger <pi@opsec.eu> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: prosody-0.8.2 Message-ID: <20140206185532.GK55007@redundancy.redundancy.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJOeo-3UCy9aa3qHPvgc3yKsO0YuTCPG-cY6BfwJV0NSrRYRdQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <1391697997.2043.5.camel@TIS-Ben-T520.local> <20140206150619.GV2951@home.opsec.eu> <CAJOeo-3UCy9aa3qHPvgc3yKsO0YuTCPG-cY6BfwJV0NSrRYRdQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/06, Benjamin Podszun wrote: > > If you can try to coordinate with the luasec and luasocket maintainers ? > > Actually I think that's a non-issue (now). The comment from lx/the > maintainer of prosody claims that s2s is broken (no idea, haven't tried the > patch just yet) and wonders if we'd need the forked lua dependencies. > Looking at the prosody project page [1] even THEY don't realize that the > situation has changed and they still point to [2] as a 'fork just to get a > release out'. The luasec bug [3] was closed just a week ago - in other > words: luasec proper, the official version, got a new release out and the > fork should be irrelevant now. A quick chat with the prosody developers > seems to confirm that. Well, that's good, at least. Thanks for investigating. > That said: The luasec changes _shouldn't_ break s2s (merely disable some > features, such as PFS for TLS for example). I agree! However, I was not able to successfully debug the issue with the Prosody developers. Things may well have changed now, I just want to get things fully in compliance with what the Prosody developers are using, as a test cycle of all of Prosody's functionality is quite time-consuming. > So .. this probably now needs a bump for lua51-luasec (which lists no > individual maintainer, points to ports@freebsd.org only) from 0.4 to 0.5. > How would I approach that? Looking at the port myself and giving it a try? > Attaching that to a bug of sorts (similar to the prosody one)? Tell you what -- I'll try to tackle LuaSec. If you can take a look at the Luasocket situation and perhaps bring that up with the maintainer, that'd certainly be useful. Thanks, David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140206185532.GK55007>