[Date Prev][Date Next]
Makefile management of various OpenLDAP versions in FreeBSD ports (ITS#2637)
Full_Name: Jim Dutton
Submission from: (NULL) (18.104.22.168)
A method for more intelligent management of installing OpenLDAP (specifically
FreeBSD) is being considered as there are different applications which use
but they may require different versions of OpenLDAP. Additionally, a user may
a source version of OpenLDAP, with or without many local configuration and/or
changes, that could be severly impacted by the installation of another OpenLDAP
because of its inclusion in a FreeBSD (application) port. At the moment, each
usage of OpenLDAP, by the user or a port, is "handled" indepdendently and no
paid to the version of OpenLDAP involved with respect to other uses/requirements
In essence, a user or port may install OpenLDAP-2.1.22, but another port may
require OpenLDAP-2.0.15, or OpenLPAP-1.5.x, or whatever. The side affect of this
is the overlay of any previous installation of OpenLDAP and the possible
destruction of any previously existing database. Another side affect is the
specification of an earlier version of OpenLDAP which is not really required
when an existing installation, or available newer version, will provide the
necessary LDAP functionality.
In addition to better managing the requirements for various versions of OpenLDAP
is the intent, and desire, to allow the user to override the application
Makefile to prevent it from forcibly installing another version of OpenLDAP when
said user already knows that they have OpenLDAP installed. Then the question of
appropriate OpenLDAP VERSION is left up to the user to decide/verify, but this
also allows said user the ability to PREVENT the installation of OpenLDAP by a
(FreeBSD) application port (as mentioned below).
The general desire of this "problem report" is to better coordinate the
existance of OpenLDAP on a (*BSD) system and all applications which require AN
OpenLDAP installation (as a part of that BSD system's port/packages distribution
mechanism), as well as any user-installed source versions. One proposal is
stated below, and is hereby submitted for comment by OpenLDAP.org.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: ports/53805: mod balsa2-2.0.11_1 for LDAPv3 default and user
(source) installed OpenLDAP
Date: 08 Jul 2003 20:00:25 -0400
On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 04:48, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Hmmm - what I had included in the patch, and was really wanting to
> "enable", was the basic ability to bypass OpenLDAP altogether in the
> Balsa2 Makefile, OR, include a ports-based Openldap as I had in the
> patch, and as apache2 does with its ".if defined(WITH_LDAP)" subsection.
> The "issue" is whether a general user has the ability to override, or
> prevent, the installation of OpenLDAP by ANY FreeBSD port. Some ports
> may be looking for OpenLDAP-2.0.x while others may be looking for 1.x,
> or 2.1.x. As I mentioned before, where _I_ have installed a version of
> OpenLDAP from source I really, really, do NOT want some port attempting
> to, or forcing, the installation of "another" OpenLDAP.
> This is a "simple" user choice - at least for the advanced OpenLDAP
> user. Using a Makefile test for a specific override variable allows all
> users to make this choice, but by default, the port would go ahead and
> install its desired/required OpenLDAP. The user must override this
> default to prevent an unnecessary/undesirable port installation of
> Some ports are set up to pay attention to a "HAVE..." variable defined
> in /etc/make.conf. Perhaps instead of proposing "HAVE_OPENLDAP_V2" as
> the override variable, something else could be used like just
> "HAVE_OPENLDAP" so a port would NOT install OpenLDAP if that variable
> was defined/set.
Maybe we need a bsd.ldap.mk file that works much the way the Java
version does. If you want to draw up some patches that could be used
globally, I'll take a look. You might also want to involve the OpenLDAP
maintainers to see what they would like to do. We have so many OL
versions in the tree now, that there really does need to be a better way
of doing dependency handling. I'm really not in favor of carving up
individual ports, though.
> Once I find out "who" in Balsa-land to raise the other issues with, I
> will persue them with them.
> On 1 Jul, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > As for the need for an overall more flexible LDAP approach, this may or
> > may not be feasible depending on the API changes, and the level of
> > OpenLDAP support in various ports. You can use Apache as a rough guide,
> > but I don't think you'll find a perfect solution.
Joe Marcus Clarke
FreeBSD GNOME Team :: marcus@FreeBSD.org