Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:19:41 +0200 From: Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.ports@mailing.thruhere.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Wesley Shields <wxs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Dovecot Sieve port switched from CMU Sieve to Dovecot Message-ID: <200909021519.41950.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.ports@mailing.thruhere.net> In-Reply-To: <20090829181122.GA22669@atarininja.org> References: <20090827131800.191378ee@gumby.homeunix.com> <4A982DC9.7050608@CoolRat.org> <20090829181122.GA22669@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 29 August 2009 20:11:22 Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 03:19:37PM -0400, Yarema wrote:
> > I was previously overruled by a committer when I filed a PR to default
> > ManageSieve to ON. IIRC, POLA was sited as the reason. I'm still of
> > the opinion that the ManageSieve patch to the main dovecot port should
> > default to ON for the following reasons:
> >
> > - with the ManageSieve patch built into the package it becomes possible
> > for users of binary packages to just install the dovecot-sieve and
> > dovecot-managesieve ports and have them work. As it stands now anyone
> > who wants to use ManageSieve has to build the dovecot port from source.
> > So it doesn't even make sense to have a binary package of
> > dovecot-managesieve unless the ManageSieve patch is built into the
> > dovecot package by default as well.
> >
> > - the ManageSieve patch does not add much bulk to the package. Those
> > who do not use ManageSieve can simply ignore it or if they build from
> > source can disable it. Either way from the perspective of those who do
> > not use ManageSieve nothing really changes (thus POLA is not violated).
> >
> > - and finally there would be fewer broken PRs filed without the distinfo
> > for the ManageSieve patch included.
> >
> > In my opinion it seems not having the binary dovecot-managesieve package
> > "just work" is more of a POLA violation than having an extra
> > README.managesieve and related dovecot.conf sections installed by
> > default in the main dovecot port.
>
> I have no problems marking that option as on by default since it will
> mean that the managesieve port can be usefully packaged, while not
> bloating the port at all.
To further this issue in the "right" direction, I've investigated the bloat,
using a slave port:
PORTNAME= dovecot
PKGNAMESUFFIX= -withsieve
CATEGORIES= mail ipv6
MASTERDIR= ${.CURDIR}/../../mail/dovecot
CONFLICTS= dovecot-1*
.include "${MASTERDIR}/Makefile"
.if defined(WITHOUT_MANAGESIEVE)
.undef WITHOUT_MANAGESIEVE
.endif
WITH_MANAGESIEVE= yes
Result:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2626479 Sep 2 05:05 dovecot-1.2.4.tbz
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2626719 Sep 2 05:04 dovecot-withsieve-1.2.4.tbz
I think more bytes have been wasted on discussing this, then it adds to the
port. Also, I've left it off, thinking "I'll add this later or just add the
package", because the OPTION framework does not really have enough room to
specify "You have to tick this option to ON if you want to be able to add
dovecot-managesieve port later", so yes, POLA was violated by not having it on
by default and the description should probably read something like "Set to off
if you never want managesieve support".
--
Mel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200909021519.41950.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.ports>