FreeBSD Port: prosody-0.8.2

David Thiel lx at
Thu Feb 6 18:55:33 UTC 2014

On 02/06, Benjamin Podszun wrote:
> > 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.

Well, that's good, at least. Thanks for investigating.
> That said: The luasec changes _shouldn't_ break s2s (merely disable some
> features, such as PFS for TLS for example).

I agree! However, I was not able to successfully debug the issue with
the Prosody developers. Things may well have changed now, I just want to
get things fully in compliance with what the Prosody developers are
using, as a test cycle of all of Prosody's functionality is quite

> So .. this probably now needs a bump for lua51-luasec (which lists no
> individual maintainer, points to ports at only) from 0.4 to 0.5.
> How would I approach that? Looking at the port myself and giving it a try?
> Attaching that to a bug of sorts (similar to the prosody one)?

Tell you what -- I'll try to tackle LuaSec. If you can take a look at
the Luasocket situation and perhaps bring that up with the maintainer,
that'd certainly be useful.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list