Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
On 5/01/2017 6:44 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: On 5/01/2017 6:30 PM, Jan Bramkamp wrote: On 04/01/2017 18:32, Andriy Gapon wrote: Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install both samba44 and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? Or samba44 and KDE? If yes, then that sucks... similar happened recently with the two jpeg libraries. They can't be installed at the same time but some packages wanted one and some the other. Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the complexity. Are there any reasons other than saved build time to disable this dependency (e.g. a bad security track record/process, different licenses)? ___ no, I think the "solution" is to think of an architectural way around this. One thought: maybe we can have a 'virtual dependency" that more than one package can satisfy? the USES stuff seems to be heading in that direction. Maybe someone who knows more about it can tell us more about it? I'd also like to see packages have more htan one way to install, to give the same effect as the linux -devel and regular packages. pkg install --runtime vs pkg install --devel (and I'd like to see a --minimal, no docs, examples etc.) Each would have their own depednencies as well, probably building up from minimal->runtime->devel ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client (Miroslav Lachman)
On 11/01/2017 03:27, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > It should be fixed now in the ports tree. I don't know when new packages will > be > available for pkg install / pkg upgrade. > > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision=431079 Good news! Thanks for the fix. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client (Miroslav Lachman)
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: > Lee Brown wrote on 2017/01/11 00:31: >>> >>> Jan Bramkamp wrote on 2017/01/05 11:30: On 04/01/2017 18:32, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > > Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install > both samba44 > and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? > Or samba44 and KDE? > > If yes, then that sucks... Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the complexity. Are there any reasons other than saved build time to disable this dependency (e.g. a bad security track record/process, different licenses)? >>> >>> >>> And what is the right way to choose SASL / NON-SASL version globaly? >>> We are building packages in our poudriere, but I cannot find the proper >>> variable / option for this. >>> >>> Miroslav Lachman >> >> (sorry for losing the headers, I had to copy/paste this as I switched >> from digest to individual). >> >> Is there a satisfactory answer to Miroslav's question? >> >> I'm in the same predicament, I can't upgrade anything without removing >> libreoffice, presumably because of samba. >> I've tried looking through the tree of options for libreoffice and >> samba, but I'm at a loss. > > > It should be fixed now in the ports tree. I don't know when new packages > will be available for pkg install / pkg upgrade. > > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision=431079 > > Miroslav Lachman > Oh awesome, that should be ready for me tomorrow morning then (I build by own too). Thank you -- lee ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client (Miroslav Lachman)
Lee Brown wrote on 2017/01/11 00:31: Jan Bramkamp wrote on 2017/01/05 11:30: On 04/01/2017 18:32, Andriy Gapon wrote: Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install both samba44 and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? Or samba44 and KDE? If yes, then that sucks... Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the complexity. Are there any reasons other than saved build time to disable this dependency (e.g. a bad security track record/process, different licenses)? And what is the right way to choose SASL / NON-SASL version globaly? We are building packages in our poudriere, but I cannot find the proper variable / option for this. Miroslav Lachman (sorry for losing the headers, I had to copy/paste this as I switched from digest to individual). Is there a satisfactory answer to Miroslav's question? I'm in the same predicament, I can't upgrade anything without removing libreoffice, presumably because of samba. I've tried looking through the tree of options for libreoffice and samba, but I'm at a loss. It should be fixed now in the ports tree. I don't know when new packages will be available for pkg install / pkg upgrade. https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision=431079 Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client (Miroslav Lachman)
> Jan Bramkamp wrote on 2017/01/05 11:30: > > On 04/01/2017 18:32, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> > >> Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install > >> both samba44 > >> and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? > >> Or samba44 and KDE? > >> > >> If yes, then that sucks... > > > > Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set > > the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary > > packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see > > removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the > > complexity. Are there any reasons other than saved build time to disable > > this dependency (e.g. a bad security track record/process, different > > licenses)? > > And what is the right way to choose SASL / NON-SASL version globaly? > We are building packages in our poudriere, but I cannot find the proper > variable / option for this. > > Miroslav Lachman (sorry for losing the headers, I had to copy/paste this as I switched from digest to individual). Is there a satisfactory answer to Miroslav's question? I'm in the same predicament, I can't upgrade anything without removing libreoffice, presumably because of samba. I've tried looking through the tree of options for libreoffice and samba, but I'm at a loss. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
Franco Fichtner wrote on 2017/01/10 06:48: On 9 Jan 2017, at 11:54 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: I don't need SASL for LDAP client, but somebody messed up ports tree with WANT_OPENLDAP_SASL which is for users and not maintainers: # WANT_OPENLDAP_SASL # - User-defined variable to depend upon SASL-enabled OpenLDAP # client. Must NOT be set in a port Makefile. This note was added two days ago and it's simply not correct, and/or overcome by events as it is against the common practice in the tree *and* adhering to it would break currently working ports. Even if this doesn't exist at all the change was bad handled. No info in UPDATING and what was working for years now doesn't work. Simple "pkg upgrade" failed because of conflicting versions of openldap-client. OpenLDAP needs framework improvements of the sort that gssapi or ssl received, but we have yet to hear from the maintainer of OpenLDAP on the matter. And changes like this must be better tested before committing... Breakages are too common in these days. Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
Edemic enforcement of unwanted security technologies propagates further on. Port net/p5-perl-ldap requires port security/p5-Authen-SASL, which by defaul turns ON kerberos support. This brings situation, when private key infrastructure (PKI) software by default depends from Kerberos, which is as if: nginx depends from apache. Cf PR here: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215835 Regards, Sergei On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: > Miroslav Lachman wrote on 2017/01/09 23:48: > >> Jan Bramkamp wrote on 2017/01/05 11:30: >> >>> On 04/01/2017 18:32, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install both samba44 and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? Or samba44 and KDE? If yes, then that sucks... >>> >>> Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set >>> the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary >>> packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see >>> removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the >>> complexity. Are there any reasons other than saved build time to disable >>> this dependency (e.g. a bad security track record/process, different >>> licenses)? >>> >> >> And what is the right way to choose SASL / NON-SASL version globaly? >> We are building packages in our poudriere, but I cannot find the proper >> variable / option for this. >> >> Miroslav Lachman >> > > I don't need SASL for LDAP client, but somebody messed up ports tree with > WANT_OPENLDAP_SASL which is for users and not maintainers: > > # WANT_OPENLDAP_SASL > # - User-defined variable to depend upon > SASL-enabled OpenLDAP > # client. Must NOT be set in a port > Makefile. > > So why it is set there > > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/databases/ldb/Makefile > ?r1=430417=430416=430417 > > and there > > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/net/samba43/Makefile? > r1=429692=429691=429692 > > and maybe in some other places > > Miroslav Lachman > ___ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
> On 9 Jan 2017, at 11:54 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: > > I don't need SASL for LDAP client, but somebody messed up ports tree with > WANT_OPENLDAP_SASL which is for users and not maintainers: > > # WANT_OPENLDAP_SASL > # - User-defined variable to depend upon > SASL-enabled OpenLDAP > # client. Must NOT be set in a port Makefile. This note was added two days ago and it's simply not correct, and/or overcome by events as it is against the common practice in the tree *and* adhering to it would break currently working ports. OpenLDAP needs framework improvements of the sort that gssapi or ssl received, but we have yet to hear from the maintainer of OpenLDAP on the matter. So far, there was a single answer on the suggestion to unify SASL into OpenLDAP as a default option, to be taken out by avid self-made port builders when they are sure they don't need it and don't break their ports. The plus would be no more package name changes of the sort openldap-{sasl-,}client and the dependency tracking issues associated with having two ports clash with each other, because they are "same same but different". Cheers, Franco ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
Miroslav Lachman wrote on 2017/01/09 23:48: Jan Bramkamp wrote on 2017/01/05 11:30: On 04/01/2017 18:32, Andriy Gapon wrote: Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install both samba44 and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? Or samba44 and KDE? If yes, then that sucks... Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the complexity. Are there any reasons other than saved build time to disable this dependency (e.g. a bad security track record/process, different licenses)? And what is the right way to choose SASL / NON-SASL version globaly? We are building packages in our poudriere, but I cannot find the proper variable / option for this. Miroslav Lachman I don't need SASL for LDAP client, but somebody messed up ports tree with WANT_OPENLDAP_SASL which is for users and not maintainers: # WANT_OPENLDAP_SASL # - User-defined variable to depend upon SASL-enabled OpenLDAP # client. Must NOT be set in a port Makefile. So why it is set there https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/databases/ldb/Makefile?r1=430417=430416=430417 and there https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/net/samba43/Makefile?r1=429692=429691=429692 and maybe in some other places Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
Jan Bramkamp wrote on 2017/01/05 11:30: On 04/01/2017 18:32, Andriy Gapon wrote: Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install both samba44 and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? Or samba44 and KDE? If yes, then that sucks... Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the complexity. Are there any reasons other than saved build time to disable this dependency (e.g. a bad security track record/process, different licenses)? And what is the right way to choose SASL / NON-SASL version globaly? We are building packages in our poudriere, but I cannot find the proper variable / option for this. Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
On 05/01/2017 11:56, Franco Fichtner wrote: On 5 Jan 2017, at 11:44 AM, Julian Elischerwrote: On 5/01/2017 6:30 PM, Jan Bramkamp wrote: On 04/01/2017 18:32, Andriy Gapon wrote: Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install both samba44 and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? Or samba44 and KDE? If yes, then that sucks... similar happened recently with the two jpeg libraries. They can't be installed at the same time but some packages wanted one and some the other. The OpenLDAP package state is a bit behind more modern ports framework approaches. Fixing the offending packages away from OpenLDAP is nice, but eventually the issues will reappear port for port, time after time. If we strive for default ports options that are sane for most users, globally setting WANT_OPENLDAP_SASL=yes is the way to prevent that from happening again. There is probably a very valid historic reason for not having done so, but people can still build their own ports without SASL if they want and incompatibility issues are unlikely when the support is built in. At least we haven't seen anything in the past 6 months in OPNsense since we switched to avoid this in our build runs. And besides, having a package name flip-flop using arcane toggles should be removed as it breaks POLA. Long story short: make SASL an OPTION, add it to defaults, don't mess with the package name anymore? That would be my prefered short term solution. Can we get some input from the ports maintainer? Maybe there is still a good reason for the current state of affairs. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
On 05/01/2017 12:04, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 01/05/17 10:43, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! [openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client and libreoffice etc] Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the complexity. The other question is: What's the use of SASL anyway ? I've seen it for years in mailserver setups, etc, and it always caused trouble. SASL effectively gets you a number of new authentication mechanisms. Most of these are ways of proving you know a secret without sending the actual secret (ie. password) over the net in plain text, but I think it also adds the ability to use client TLS certificates for authentication. IIRC. I don't see much value in the extra mechanisms for secure login over unencrypted links nowadays. Pretty much everything I'm using currently already requires TLS for good security reasons, so there's no real downside to using plain LOGIN over the encrypted channel. Plus the 'proof of knowledge' authentication mechanisms have a big downside: they need the secret stored in the LDAP database in plain text, or in some locally reversible encryption. With LOGIN over TLS, I can use salted password hashes in much the same way as Unix passwords. SASL would be worth it for TLS client certificate functionality, if that's the only way to enable that. SASL external is required by OpenLDAP to extract authentication data from TLS client certificates and not all SASL mechs require plaintext passwords inside the database to avoid leaking the credentials over the wire e.g. SASL SCRAM (RFC 5802). You can also use SASL to authenticate against PAM. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
On 01/05/17 10:43, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! [openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client and libreoffice etc] Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the complexity. The other question is: What's the use of SASL anyway ? I've seen it for years in mailserver setups, etc, and it always caused trouble. SASL effectively gets you a number of new authentication mechanisms. Most of these are ways of proving you know a secret without sending the actual secret (ie. password) over the net in plain text, but I think it also adds the ability to use client TLS certificates for authentication. IIRC. I don't see much value in the extra mechanisms for secure login over unencrypted links nowadays. Pretty much everything I'm using currently already requires TLS for good security reasons, so there's no real downside to using plain LOGIN over the encrypted channel. Plus the 'proof of knowledge' authentication mechanisms have a big downside: they need the secret stored in the LDAP database in plain text, or in some locally reversible encryption. With LOGIN over TLS, I can use salted password hashes in much the same way as Unix passwords. SASL would be worth it for TLS client certificate functionality, if that's the only way to enable that. Cheers, Matthew ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
On 05/01/2017 11:43, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! [openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client and libreoffice etc] Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the complexity. The other question is: What's the use of SASL anyway ? I've seen it for years in mailserver setups, etc, and it always caused trouble. SASL is a authentication API. It allows an application to reuse the tested SASL protocol and code. SASL differs from PAM in that it allows its authentication mechanisms more possibilities as required to deal with X.509 client certificates and Kerberos tickets. Without SASL OpenLDAP is limited to password based authentication against passwords stored inside the LDAP database as plaintext or salted MD5/SHA1 hashes. With SASL you can the supported SASL mechanisms: * SASL external: Let the transport layer provide authentication. TLS protected connections can reuse the client certificate common name and map it to a LDAP object. Local connections over UNIX domain sockets can use the effective client user and primary group id to search for a matching user object inside the LDAP database. * SASL GSSAPI: Use Kerberos to authenticate against the LDAP service. Works great for interactive use if you already have Kerberos deployed. Can be used to centralize password storage in the Kerberos KDCs instead of the LDAP service while still supporting LDAP simple binds. In theory you could use a bunch of additional SASL mechs but these are the two I have encountered in everyday use. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
> On 5 Jan 2017, at 11:44 AM, Julian Elischerwrote: > > On 5/01/2017 6:30 PM, Jan Bramkamp wrote: >> On 04/01/2017 18:32, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> >>> Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install both >>> samba44 >>> and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? >>> Or samba44 and KDE? >>> >>> If yes, then that sucks... > > similar happened recently with the two jpeg libraries. > They can't be installed at the same time but some packages wanted one and > some the other. The OpenLDAP package state is a bit behind more modern ports framework approaches. Fixing the offending packages away from OpenLDAP is nice, but eventually the issues will reappear port for port, time after time. If we strive for default ports options that are sane for most users, globally setting WANT_OPENLDAP_SASL=yes is the way to prevent that from happening again. There is probably a very valid historic reason for not having done so, but people can still build their own ports without SASL if they want and incompatibility issues are unlikely when the support is built in. At least we haven't seen anything in the past 6 months in OPNsense since we switched to avoid this in our build runs. And besides, having a package name flip-flop using arcane toggles should be removed as it breaks POLA. Long story short: make SASL an OPTION, add it to defaults, don't mess with the package name anymore? Cheers, Franco ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
On 5/01/2017 6:30 PM, Jan Bramkamp wrote: On 04/01/2017 18:32, Andriy Gapon wrote: Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install both samba44 and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? Or samba44 and KDE? If yes, then that sucks... similar happened recently with the two jpeg libraries. They can't be installed at the same time but some packages wanted one and some the other. Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the complexity. Are there any reasons other than saved build time to disable this dependency (e.g. a bad security track record/process, different licenses)? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
Hi! [openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client and libreoffice etc] > Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set > the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary > packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see > removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the > complexity. The other question is: What's the use of SASL anyway ? I've seen it for years in mailserver setups, etc, and it always caused trouble. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go ! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
On 04/01/2017 18:32, Andriy Gapon wrote: Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install both samba44 and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? Or samba44 and KDE? If yes, then that sucks... Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and set the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With binary packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no longer see removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to justify the complexity. Are there any reasons other than saved build time to disable this dependency (e.g. a bad security track record/process, different licenses)? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:32:56PM EST, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install both > samba44 > and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? > Or samba44 and KDE? > > If yes, then that sucks... > I believe this is being fix but for now yes you can't have openldap-sasl-client installed when something else needs openldap-client ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install both samba44 and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository? Or samba44 and KDE? If yes, then that sucks... -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"