openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client

[Jan Bramkamp]

On 05/01/2017 11:56, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 11:44 AM, Julian Elischer <julian at freebsd.org> 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.
>
> 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.