Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:47:52 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Christian Kratzer <ck@cksoft.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/54202: [MAINTAINER PATCH] unify port net/openldap20 with net/openldap22 Message-ID: <3F0D4458.10005@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20030710114206.M84774@majakka.cksoft.de> References: <3F0A09E7.9080502@fillmore-labs.com> <20030710114206.M84774@majakka.cksoft.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Christian,
thanks for your reply.
Christian Kratzer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a couple of comments ...
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
>
>>- unify port net/openldap20 with net/openldap22 (easier to maintain)
>
> you seem to be very active with the openldap ports currently and I would
> suggest that you take over the openldap21 port from me for consistency
> purposes. Feel free to update yourself as the maintainer if you like.
If you trust me to maintain the port and really want to give up maintainership,
I'll be honored to take it. I'll try to keep the ports structurally similar,
to easy maintainership and migration. Thats what PR ports/54202 is about.
>>- install additional documentation
>>- don't install .la files
>>- make start/stop scripts compatible with net/openldap22
>>- better package building
>>- improved installation messages
>>- package name is openldap again - should have never been renamed
>
> it happened when my openldap21 port was committed in February this year.
> I had submitted the port with packagename openldap and version 2.1.x but
> there was some discussion with the committers that policy was changing and
> the new scheme was now preferred.
Ah.. I didn't know that. Can you please point me to some documentation on why
this policy was changed and what the advantages are? Perhaps I should change
net/openldap22 then, to keep things consistent.
> Of course I would prefer changing back but this will break dependent ports
> once again. If we change back I would very much like this to stay and not
> be changed back again. Perhaps this should be documented in the Makefiles.
Hmmm.... I thought it was just an oversight. I'll post an extra message to
ports@ to discuss this.
> I would think that the maintainers of dependent ports would not bee too happy
> to change the openldap dependencies every couple of months.
For sure. But a change in the portname does not imply an source code changes
in the dependend ports, no dependency would break. And I think not adhering
to standards causes for more confusion in the long run.
>>- bump portrevision
>>
>>Differences between net/openldap20 and net/openldap22:
>
> openldap22 is still alpha and openldap21 is the currently preferred
> version. openldap20 although still in use is EOL and should be depreciated.
Agreed, that is what OpenLDAP does on its web page. I only pointed out that
it is important to maintain the net/openldap20 port as long as so many ports
use it, and I'm not in a position to tell other port maintainers what port
they should depend on.
> Even if openldap22 could currently be ok we should not induce openldap
> newbies to go with the lastest and greatest alpha code that could break
> any time. Remeber the problems with the berkeley db backend and with
> threads in early openldap2.1 releases. Thinks can break from one day
> to another and rebuilding all your dependencies to go back can be quite
> stressing ...
Hey, I didn't. I felt this port was important to help people integrate
OpenLDAP 2.2 as early as possible, to ease migration when OpenLDAP 2.2
is ready, sorry if I made a contrary impression. But until know nobody
had a problem with alpha ports in the ports tree (see the
mail/cyrus-imapd22 port), so I wonder if a warning in pkg-descr is
really beneficial.
> Greetings
> Christian
Regards
Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F0D4458.10005>