Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 15:26:48 +0800 From: Gregory Orange <gregory.orange@calorieking.com> To: koobs@FreeBSD.org, ohauer@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mail/postfix default build options request: SASL Message-ID: <559B7F38.3080404@calorieking.com> In-Reply-To: <559B6791.7050407@FreeBSD.org> References: <559B643F.3060409@calorieking.com> <559B6791.7050407@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/07/15 13:45, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 7/07/2015 3:31 PM, Gregory Orange wrote:
>> I don't know if this is a helpful forum to raise it, but I would like to
>> request that SASL be enabled in the default build options for
>> mail/postfix. I am attempting to use binary-only packages wherever
>> possible, and so far this is the first where I currently have to build
>> it myself.
>
> If consensus can't be achieved or there is a good reason not to enable
> this by default, then postfix-sasl as a slave port may be a desirable
> alternative, which I believe has existed in the past.
>
> +1 on security related options enabled by default
> +1 on OPTIONS_DEFAULT matching upstream defaults
> -1 on OPTIONS_DEFAULT introducing large dependency sets
I am encouraged to hear there are a couple of different options which
could be explored. As I have gone and built the package, I have
discovered that I do not actually use the SASL option, but the DOVECOT2
option. I now have a couple of questions:
1. What is the difference between DOVECOT{,2} and simply SASL? Is SASL
actually Cyrus SASL? After reading the Makefile, I'm not sure.
2. If I actually want the DOVECOT2 and not the SASL option, is it likely
I am going to be able to (advocate for and) get a binary package from
upstream servers at some point? How can the range of options be handled?
Cheers,
Greg.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?559B7F38.3080404>