Mel Flynn wrote:
On Saturday 29 August 2009 20:11:22 Wesley Shields wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 03:19:37PM -0400, Yarema wrote:
I was previously overruled by a committer when I filed a PR to default
ManageSieve to ON. IIRC, POLA was sited as the reason. I'm still of
the opinion that the ManageSieve patch to the main dovecot port should
default to ON for the following reasons:
- with the ManageSieve patch built into the package it becomes possible
for users of binary packages to just install the dovecot-sieve and
dovecot-managesieve ports and have them work. As it stands now anyone
who wants to use ManageSieve has to build the dovecot port from source.
So it doesn't even make sense to have a binary package of
dovecot-managesieve unless the ManageSieve patch is built into the
dovecot package by default as well.
- the ManageSieve patch does not add much bulk to the package. Those
who do not use ManageSieve can simply ignore it or if they build from
source can disable it. Either way from the perspective of those who do
not use ManageSieve nothing really changes (thus POLA is not violated).
- and finally there would be fewer broken PRs filed without the distinfo
for the ManageSieve patch included.
In my opinion it seems not having the binary dovecot-managesieve package
"just work" is more of a POLA violation than having an extra
README.managesieve and related dovecot.conf sections installed by
default in the main dovecot port.
I have no problems marking that option as on by default since it will
mean that the managesieve port can be usefully packaged, while not
bloating the port at all.
To further this issue in the "right" direction, I've investigated the bloat,
using a slave port:
PORTNAME= dovecot
PKGNAMESUFFIX= -withsieve
CATEGORIES= mail ipv6
MASTERDIR= ${.CURDIR}/../../mail/dovecot
CONFLICTS= dovecot-1*
.include "${MASTERDIR}/Makefile"
.if defined(WITHOUT_MANAGESIEVE)
.undef WITHOUT_MANAGESIEVE
.endif
WITH_MANAGESIEVE= yes
Result:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2626479 Sep 2 05:05 dovecot-1.2.4.tbz
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2626719 Sep 2 05:04 dovecot-withsieve-1.2.4.tbz
I think more bytes have been wasted on discussing this, then it adds to the
port. Also, I've left it off, thinking "I'll add this later or just add the
package", because the OPTION framework does not really have enough room to
specify "You have to tick this option to ON if you want to be able to add
dovecot-managesieve port later", so yes, POLA was violated by not having it on
by default and the description should probably read something like "Set to off
if you never want managesieve support".
OK then, Wesley, would you mind defaulting the MANAGESIEVE option to
"on" and closing PR/138300? Which is definitely approved, though we'll
most likely have to remove this new patch once it's rolled into the next
release upstream. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/138300
I don't believe we need to bump PORTREVISION for either of these changes
since it only affects GSSAPI users and/or binary package users. But if
you feel PORTREVISION ought to be bumped up, then so be it. I can roll
a new patch set if need be and tack it on to the above mentioned PR or
file a new one. But as Mel puts it we're using up more bytes in this
thread than is gonna end up in the port after all is said and done.. :)
--
Yarema
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
