From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 6 19:48:21 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C77B27BA; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:48:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3195D1D59; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:48:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hn9so173662wib.12 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:48:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jNL5OcjV9dxJcytnxaCTnzZJRfQPpAbvKulzquCJiN0=; b=gmks2rZoukvQMF9VFh23a3kMF1yvVat3T/14xqgrsvZt/AL1uF24Zotl5wIaLP9vg5 7DGqNHLdHzAWLuYXb71nLOtIbipHTe7GP1UM+WnRpDsXiKE+3P0xr35sphbrK5utj0UO 4rgyPK8KM/QmQvRIzXdV7eIs+bnt1tB5ajOmkhoS1FLAwfYASTMtypzuWN4o69yVnVyr NVv6OnJ4BrLb7WIaxjG0/mmERzfpYGyve6NkeVwQtC9rYDn3fTN+GOQZlwFAQ+5bDXXR QtEavT2gXORthbDnvxGmudC9dMGRm+lLYdFVjsiRVdJWCnINAGwksKOCDiyv0BkNZ8k9 lCIA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.205.239 with SMTP id lj15mr882190wic.22.1391716099568; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:48:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.188.39 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:48:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140206185532.GK55007@redundancy.redundancy.org> References: <1391697997.2043.5.camel@TIS-Ben-T520.local> <20140206150619.GV2951@home.opsec.eu> <20140206185532.GK55007@redundancy.redundancy.org> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 20:48:19 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: prosody-0.8.2 From: Benjamin Podszun To: David Thiel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: ports , Kurt Jaeger X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:48:21 -0000 On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 7:55 PM, David Thiel wrote: > 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. > Maybe I can help with that - since I plan to migrate/relocate and that's a core part of what I need here (which is why I'm diving into ports about 30min after my first FreeBSD installation in years). So - one tester, ready to help out. ;-) The prosody people updated their website to deprecate their luasec fork when I asked them about the new 0.5 release - so their website is now stating 'Use 0.5 if you can, we have a fork that you can use if you have no 0.5 package available just yet'. > > 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. > So, I have a building luasec 0.5 here. Sortof. It fails in make package or anything _after_ make build, failing in 'install'. Obviously I'm not sure if this is just a huuuuge hack or roughly usable.. Luasocket: Well, can you explain what you mean? Are you talking about luasec including luasocket (and again, in a prerelease 3.x version)? If you could tell me a bit more I'd be happy to invest some time/give it a go. Thanks, Ben