From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 6 18:55:33 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43008D9A for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:55:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redundancy.redundancy.org (redundancy.redundancy.org [IPv6:2607:f2f8:a9c4::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C7B18B5 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:55:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by redundancy.redundancy.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 904E140E8B9; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:55:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:55:32 -0800 From: David Thiel To: Benjamin Podszun Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: prosody-0.8.2 Message-ID: <20140206185532.GK55007@redundancy.redundancy.org> References: <1391697997.2043.5.camel@TIS-Ben-T520.local> <20140206150619.GV2951@home.opsec.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-OpenPGP-Key-fingerprint: 482A 8C46 C844 7E7C 8CBC 2313 96EE BEE5 1F4B CA13 X-OpenPGP-Key-available: http://redundancy.redundancy.org/lx.gpg X-Face: %H~{$1~NOw1y#%mM6{|4:/, Kurt Jaeger X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:55:33 -0000 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. > So .. this probably now needs a bump for lua51-luasec (which lists no > individual maintainer, points to ports@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. Thanks, David