Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:05:35 +0100 From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> To: Francisco Reyes <lists@natserv.com> Cc: FreeBSD ISP list <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Courier from ports without FAM? or securing FAM. Message-ID: <20051016130535.GA34124@uk.tiscali.com> In-Reply-To: <20051016012931.J90964@zoraida.natserv.net> References: <20051016012931.J90964@zoraida.natserv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 01:34:56AM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> Got courier working, however it keeps getting built with FAM even though I
> told the port not to use it.
>
> Looking at the makefile I saw
> .if defined(WITH_FAM) || exists(${LOCALBASE}/lib/libfam.so)
> CONFIGURE_ENV= CPPFLAGS="-I${LOCALBASE}/include" \
> LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS}"
> LDFLAGS+= -L${LOCALBASE}/lib
> LIB_DEPENDS+= fam.0:${PORTSDIR}/devel/fam
> .endif
>
> So I commented them all out.. still built with FAM. :-(
It will, unless the port people heavily patched courier's configure system.
It automatically looks for fam and uses it, and there's no --disable-fam
option. I keep asking for this, but MrSam keeps rejecting it. He seems to
think FAM is a good idea (despite the number of people who are broken by bad
FAM installs)
> Unforntunately I had FAM already installed and it seems the port compiles
> against it if present.. even after commenting the lines above.
Yep. You need to pkg_delete fam before building courier; you can reinstall
it afterwards.
> Anyone familiar with Courier could comment on how usefull is FAM for
> users? Is it worth the trouble/security risk?
I've always built on a clean system without FAM, and it works fine; however
the vast majority of the userbase was POP3 with only a handful of IMAP
users.
FAM is only used for IMAP and is supposed to make the IMAP IDLE command more
efficient / faster to respond to incoming mail.
Regards,
Brian.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051016130535.GA34124>