FreeBSD Port: prosody-0.8.2

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> > > Starting from 20.08.2013 prosody is on 0.9, 0.9.2 was released in
> > > January 2014.
> >
> > Have a look at
> >
> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/182075
> >
> > there is an update to 0.9.1 as a patch and one open question
> > someone has to solve.

> Thanks for the link. I .. didn't know better to search there first. Sorry
> about that.

No problem, I learned to rely on 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?query

only recently, as well 8-}

> So I guess I want that bug to be resolved, with a bump to 0.9.2
> ideally :)

Yes, probably.

> > > Is there any chance to see an update to this port? Are you still
> > > interested in this project or is the port currently abandoned?
> > > Can I help with anything to bump this to a more current (ideally: THE
> > > current) version?
> >
> > If you can try to coordinate with the luasec and luasocket maintainers ?
> 
> Actually I think that's a non-issue (now). The comment from lx/the
> maintainer of prosody claims that s2s is broken (no idea, haven't tried the
> patch just yet) and wonders if we'd need the forked lua dependencies.
> Looking at the prosody project page [1] even THEY don't realize that the
> situation has changed and they still point to [2] as a 'fork just to get a
> release out'. The luasec bug [3] was closed just a week ago - in other
> words: luasec proper, the official version, got a new release out and the
> fork should be irrelevant now. A quick chat with the prosody developers
> seems to confirm that.
> 
> That said: The luasec changes _shouldn't_ break s2s (merely disable some
> features, such as PFS for TLS for example).

Well, PFS for TLS in post-Snowden-time seems like a must-have feature,
but who am I to judge 8-}

> So .. this probably now needs a bump for lua51-luasec (which lists no
> individual maintainer, points to ports at freebsd.org only) from 0.4 to 0.5.

Sounds plausible, yes.

> How would I approach that?
> Looking at the port myself and giving it a try?

Yes, but this needs some serious investigation to try. I just had
a look, and there's no distfile, you need to get it from github, etc.

I normally copy the port to some work dir, and start fixing
the issues that come up. Here's the script to copy the dir to
~/myp/

-----------
#!/usr/local/bin/bash

if [ X$1 = 'X' ]
then
    echo "usage: $0 <port/dir>"
    exit 1
fi

if [ ! -d /usr/ports/$1 ]
then
    echo "$0: error: invalid directory '/usr/ports/$1'"
    exit 1
fi

cd ~/myp && rm -rf $1

cd /usr/ports && tar cf - $1 | ( cd ~/myp; tar xf -)

-----------

If I achive a workable port, I generate a diff and submit it using send-pr.

Here's the script to generate the diff:

-----------
#!/usr/local/bin/bash

if [ X$1 = 'X' ]
then
    echo "usage: $0 <port/dir>"
    exit 1
fi

if [ ! -d /usr/ports/$1 ]
then
    echo "$0: error: invalid directory '/usr/ports/$1'"
    exit 1
fi

if [ -d /usr/ports/$1/work ]
then
    rm -rf /usr/ports/$1/work
fi

if [ -d ~/myp/$1/work ]
then
    rm -rf ~/myp/$1/work
fi

cd /usr/ports
diff -r -u -N $1 ~/myp/$1

-----------

> Attaching that to a bug of sorts (similar to the prosody one)?

Yes, somewhat like this. I would suggest to first experiment with
smaller ports that need attention 8-} It's a steep learning curve.

Check the queue for open PRs:

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?category=ports

Find one with a patch, copy the port, apply the patch and try
it. Submit an update to the bug-report that you have tested it
and that it works. etc.

It's a useful way to learn many things about software.

-- 
pi at opsec.eu            +49 171 3101372                         6 years to go !