Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:35:49 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Subject: Re: more pkg woes Message-ID: <1414416949.1808860.183749333.1363C933@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <F52DDB55-1BC8-4D88-AF7F-38EAD282951A@gmail.com> References: <F52DDB55-1BC8-4D88-AF7F-38EAD282951A@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014, at 15:52, Paul Beard wrote: > It doesn=E2=80=99t do much good to select options that aren=E2=80=99t the= re.=20 >=20 > Oct 25 13:50:24 www postfix/smtp[84641]: warning: smtp_sasl_auth_enable > is true, but SASL support is not compiled in > Oct 25 13:50:24 www postfix/smtp[84641]: warning: TLS has been selected, > but TLS support is not compiled in >=20 > Not sure how many hours I still have to go before I fix this but it was a > damn site easier before pkgng.=20 > So the package you installed has=20 smtp_sasl_auth_enable =3D true but it's not compiled into the package? I just verified that both SASL and TLS port options are off by default. How does this compare to other OSes? Do they offer those out of the box? I wonder what upstream Postfix provides as well. My personal opinion here is that TLS should be enabled by default -- these days we should not be adding additional hurdles before users can implement best practices. FYI, the default configuration is not dynamically generated. It would take a significant amount of work to produce a config that matches the port's default build options. I do think we have an obvious problem here though if SASL and TLS are in the config by default but not built by default.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1414416949.1808860.183749333.1363C933>