Unable to configure dirmngr after openldap upgrade
kostikbel at gmail.com
Tue Mar 29 08:18:43 UTC 2011
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 04:44:25PM -0700, Xin LI wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> On 03/28/11 16:30, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 03/28/2011 14:20, Xin LI wrote:
> >> On 03/28/11 13:57, Doug Barton wrote:
> >>> On 03/28/2011 13:48, Xin LI wrote:
> >>>> On 03/28/11 12:42, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >>>>> Yup. openldap-client-2.4.24 does fine. Looks like a bug in 2.4.25.
> >>>>> I'll
> >>>>> take a look at CHANGES and see if I can figure out what broke the
> >>>>> inclusion of fetch(3) support if I get a bit of time.
> >>>> It seems that libldif now referenced the fetch support, and ironically
> >>>> it seem be a bug but a feature :(
> >>>> I have decided to disable FETCH support from now on, since it's likely
> >>>> to bring more problems.
> >>>> (If you would prefer to fix the problem for this specific problem, I
> >>>> think adding a '-lfetch' would be sufficient; but, it seems to be
> >>>> undesirable to depend fetch(3) unconditionally for all programs that
> >>>> uses openldap).
> >>> I know next to nothing about how the openldap-client stuff works, so I'm
> >>> sorry if these questions are silly. :) The biggest question is, does
> >>> dirmngr compile after your change? The other question is that the only
> >>> reason I have openldap installed at all is so that gnupg can use it to
> >>> fetch keys from ldap keyservers. Will this still work when the FETCH
> >>> option is no longer present?
> >> hmm... how do I test fetching from an ldap keyserver?
> > I'll save you the trouble. :) I got your latest update and tested both
> > scenarios myself, and the answer is that they both work.
> > So now the question is, should the FETCH OPTION be removed altogether? I
> > imagine that a lot of users will be at least as confused as I, and word
> > is that PRs for other ports are already showing up.
> I think that's being used in some ldap utilities so it might broke some
> applications that makes use of that?
> I'll add a note in UPDATING to document this.
I did not verified it, but suspect that libldap.so linking line
missed -lfetch. Note, that I mean the libldap.so linking, and not
linking of the utilities depended on libldap.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20110329/020b8141/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-ports