freebsd-ports Digest, Vol 633, Issue 2

[Nikolai Lifanov]

On 07/07/15 08:00, freebsd-ports-request at freebsd.org wrote:
> On 07/07/15 13:45, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
>> > On 7/07/2015 3:31 PM, Gregory Orange wrote:
>>> >> I don't know if this is a helpful forum to raise it, but I would like to
>>> >> request that SASL be enabled in the default build options for
>>> >> mail/postfix. I am attempting to use binary-only packages wherever
>>> >> possible, and so far this is the first where I currently have to build
>>> >> it myself.
>> >
>> > If consensus can't be achieved or there is a good reason not to enable
>> > this by default, then postfix-sasl as a slave port may be a desirable
>> > alternative, which I believe has existed in the past.
>> >
>> >   +1 on security related options enabled by default
>> >   +1 on OPTIONS_DEFAULT matching upstream defaults
>> >   -1 on OPTIONS_DEFAULT introducing large dependency sets
> I am encouraged to hear there are a couple of different options which 
> could be explored. As I have gone and built the package, I have 
> discovered that I do not actually use the SASL option, but the DOVECOT2 
> option. I now have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1. What is the difference between DOVECOT{,2} and simply SASL? Is SASL 
> actually Cyrus SASL? After reading the Makefile, I'm not sure.
> 
> 2. If I actually want the DOVECOT2 and not the SASL option, is it likely 
> I am going to be able to (advocate for and) get a binary package from 
> upstream servers at some point? How can the range of options be handled?
> 
> Cheers,
> Greg.

I +1 this request. I also use mail/postfix with DOVECOT2 option and this
is the only blocker for me to use upstream packages on this system.
Postfix users generally run Dovecot already anyway, so it removes
another package from the mix as opposed to the SASL option. Cyrus SASL
is yet another thing to configure separately as well.

- Nikolai Lifanov