Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 20:48:19 +0100 From: Benjamin Podszun <benjamin.podszun@gmail.com> To: David Thiel <lx@freebsd.org> Cc: ports <ports@freebsd.org>, Kurt Jaeger <pi@opsec.eu> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: prosody-0.8.2 Message-ID: <CAJOeo-3K-Fc%2BJOY=BPFgeCTJCaBgSqXSaQ3oNqE8HtCQ=FAMbg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140206185532.GK55007@redundancy.redundancy.org> References: <1391697997.2043.5.camel@TIS-Ben-T520.local> <20140206150619.GV2951@home.opsec.eu> <CAJOeo-3UCy9aa3qHPvgc3yKsO0YuTCPG-cY6BfwJV0NSrRYRdQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140206185532.GK55007@redundancy.redundancy.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 7:55 PM, David Thiel <lx@freebsd.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJOeo-3K-Fc%2BJOY=BPFgeCTJCaBgSqXSaQ3oNqE8HtCQ=FAMbg>