From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Oct 18 15:52: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mail.courier-mta.com (mail.courier-mta.com [66.92.103.29]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B9BD37B401 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 502) by ny.email-scan.com with local; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:52:00 -0400 References: <782730000.1003396678@volyn.dppl.net> <945820000.1003413745@volyn.dppl.net> In-Reply-To: <945820000.1003413745@volyn.dppl.net> From: "Sam Varshavchik" To: Yarema Cc: courier-users@lists.sourceforge.net, ports@FreeBSD.org, Neil Blakey-Milner Subject: Re: Courier-MTA on FreeBSD Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:52:00 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Yarema writes: > --On Thursday, October 18, 2001 11:51:24 +0000 Sam Varshavchik > wrote: > >> Yarema writes: >>> OK, what I've got so far is a completed port of sysconftool which >>> probably belongs in the devel section of FreeBSD ports. Recent >>> Courier-MTA builds depend on it even though the INSTALL docs say that >>> tarballs shouldn't have that dependency -- only CVS versions should. >>> No matter, having >> >> They don't. You do not need sysconftool to build out of a tarball. > > Well FWIW both courier-0.35.1 and courier-0.35.1.20011014 fail when > building under FreeBSD's ports system without sysconftool installed. This > does not mean that the tarball is at fault. It just means that the way > FreeBSD bsd.port.mk's configure target is called breaks the tarball's > dependency on it's included sysconftool or something to that effect. This > is not a big deal. In that case: test if c_rehash is available. If not, add --without-rootcerts to configure. > I understand there's a reason -- I'm not new to this. However for the > files and binaries where it doesn't matter it would be preferable that > they be installed as root:wheel or whatever the OS convention is. If for > no other reason than just to be able to easily tell which files require to > be owned by a particular user and which don't. Not everyone has a wheel group, so I can't specify it in my tarballs. As I general rule of thumb: anything that I install in bindir or sbindir that is group-executable, not a soft link, and does NOT have a setuid or setgid bit can have its ownership adjusted. For soft links, follow the soft link and look where it's pointing to. You're probably better off doing this as a post-install fixup. Alternatively, after running make install run make install-perms from the source directory, and look at the permissions.dat file. The make install-perms target generates permissions.dat which lists every file that gets installed, and what it's permissions are. > with that. The INSTALL macro issue is a problem though. I've worked > around it. But the tarball Makefile.in and > autoconf/automake/libtool/sysconftool generate: > > INSTALL = ../ This is usually the result of the INSTALL environment variable being set before running configure. Unset INSTALL before running configure. -- Sam To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message