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>