FreeBSD Port: prosody-0.8.2

[Benjamin Podszun]

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 7:55 PM, David Thiel <lx at freebsd.org> wrote:

> 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
> time-consuming.
>

Maybe I can help with that - since I plan to migrate/relocate and that's a
core part of what I need here (which is why I'm diving into ports about
30min after my first FreeBSD installation in years). So - one tester, ready
to help out. ;-)
The prosody people updated their website to deprecate their luasec fork
when I asked them about the new 0.5 release - so their website is now
stating 'Use 0.5 if you can, we have a fork that you can use if you have no
0.5 package available just yet'.


> > 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.
> > 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.
>

So, I have a building luasec 0.5 here. Sortof. It fails in make package or
anything _after_ make build, failing in 'install'.
Obviously I'm not sure if this is just a huuuuge hack or roughly usable..

Luasocket: Well, can you explain what you mean? Are you talking about
luasec including luasocket (and again, in a prerelease 3.x version)? If you
could tell me a bit more I'd be happy to invest some time/give it a go.

Thanks,
Ben