[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Makefile management of various OpenLDAP versions in FreeBSD ports (ITS#2637)

This issue will be closed as not indicative of an OpenLDAP
Software issue.


PS: I think all ports not using the latest release (of
any library) should be marked broken.  On all systems
I manage, I have one version of any particular library
(ldap, ssl, sasl, etc.) or application (apache, slapd,

At 07:41 PM 7/8/2003, jimd@siu.edu wrote:
>Full_Name: Jim Dutton
>Version: 2.1.2x
>OS: FreeBSD
>URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
>Submission from: (NULL) (
>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
>attention is
>paid to the version of OpenLDAP involved with respect to other uses/requirements
>of OpenLDAP.
>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
>      To: jimd@siu.edu
>On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 04:48, jimd@siu.edu 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
>> OpenLDAP.
>> 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