Re: DJBware ports
net/djbdns fails a make fake on i386 current as follows: === Faking installation for djbdns-1.05 echo /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns/w-djbdns-1.05/fake-i386/usr/local /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns/w-djbdns-1.05/djbdns-1.05/conf-home cd /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns/w-djbdns-1.05/djbdns-1.05 make install instcheck ./auto-str auto_home `head -1 conf-home` auto_home.c ./compile auto_home.c ./load install hier.o auto_home.o buffer.a unix.a byte.a ./load instcheck hier.o auto_home.o buffer.a unix.a byte.a cd /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns/w-djbdns-1.05/djbdns-1.05 ./install systrace: deny user: root, prog: /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns/w-djbdns-1.05/djbdns-1.05/install, pid: 22953(0)[5027], policy: /usr/bin/make, filters: 194, syscall: native-fswrite(5), filename: /etc/dnsroots.global install: fatal: unable to write .../etc/dnsroots.global: permission denied *** Error code 111 Stop in /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns (line 38 of Makefile). *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns (line 2193 of /usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk). Looks like a bad installation path that I missed. Thanks, I'll look into it later this week. Jim
Re: DJBware ports
* Arnaud Bergeron [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080704 10:54]: 2008/7/4 Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: * Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-01 03:12]: So, I'm a fan of DJBDNS, but, I have to ask: Why?!? I am not exactly a fan, but I am using it, and the hassle at upgrades alone (remember, recompile, yadda yadda yadda, versus handled with the regular pkg_add -ui) alone is worth the port. Do you normalize his directory layout, or do you maintain his suggested layout (which has its merits, but is VERY non-hier(7)). normalize! LONG, LONG ago, probably around the 2.7 days, I used a DJBDNS port on OpenBSD, and seriously regretted it. It was SO much easier to simply install following DJB's instructions than it was to find where things were put by the well-meaning porter. in some places I still have ancient homegrown ports that are full of errors. upgrades on tehse machines are STILL much easier than the ones that have shit compiled from source. In that spirit, I have made ports for these applications. I will not push for inclusion, I am merely showing my own work. If that can make the life of others simpler, I'm happy. Keep in mind that these ports where developed and tested on 4.3, not current. (I do this all the time, but usually keep up with changes announced on ports@ and test with current if I am pushing for inclusion). Note that all paths have been normalized for these ports except for the qmail one which will install in /var/qmail like something compiled from source. Also, the qmail users and groups should be created automatically with ids between 5000 and 5007. If want other ids, you will have to edit the makefile and the packing list (both of them). If you have any suggestions for improvements, I'll take them. Arnaud net/djbdns fails a make fake on i386 current as follows: === Faking installation for djbdns-1.05 echo /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns/w-djbdns-1.05/fake-i386/usr/local /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns/w-djbdns-1.05/djbdns-1.05/conf-home cd /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns/w-djbdns-1.05/djbdns-1.05 make install instcheck ./auto-str auto_home `head -1 conf-home` auto_home.c ./compile auto_home.c ./load install hier.o auto_home.o buffer.a unix.a byte.a ./load instcheck hier.o auto_home.o buffer.a unix.a byte.a cd /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns/w-djbdns-1.05/djbdns-1.05 ./install systrace: deny user: root, prog: /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns/w-djbdns-1.05/djbdns-1.05/install, pid: 22953(0)[5027], policy: /usr/bin/make, filters: 194, syscall: native-fswrite(5), filename: /etc/dnsroots.global install: fatal: unable to write .../etc/dnsroots.global: permission denied *** Error code 111 Stop in /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns (line 38 of Makefile). *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/mystuff/net/djbdns (line 2193 of /usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk). Jim
Re: DJBware ports
Quoting Henning Brauer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): [..] Do you normalize his directory layout, or do you maintain his suggested layout (which has its merits, but is VERY non-hier(7)). normalize! Conformity! I've run a bunch of his tools for years, and I still hate having to guess/find(1) every time I need to look for something. It's true that people who have made manual installations will have to adapt to things being in new places.. but it's easy to adapt to things being where everything else is, and you only have to do this ONE TIME. Not normalising means just pushing a large pile of crap in front of you, so just get it right from the beginning and never look back. in some places I still have ancient homegrown ports that are full of errors. upgrades on tehse machines are STILL much easier than the ones that have shit compiled from source. Upgrading with pkg_add -ui is so much simpler and, which is very important to me, less error prone. -- The Librarian gave him the kind of look other people would reserve for people who said things like `What's so bad about genocide?' -- (Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!)
Re: DJBware ports
* Michael Knudsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-05 22:28]: It's true that people who have made manual installations will have to adapt to things being in new places.. they actually don't have to - they are free to keep their manual installations. Nobody is forced to use ports/packages. -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: DJBware ports
* Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-01 03:12]: So, I'm a fan of DJBDNS, but, I have to ask: Why?!? I am not exactly a fan, but I am using it, and the hassle at upgrades alone (remember, recompile, yadda yadda yadda, versus handled with the regular pkg_add -ui) alone is worth the port. Do you normalize his directory layout, or do you maintain his suggested layout (which has its merits, but is VERY non-hier(7)). normalize! LONG, LONG ago, probably around the 2.7 days, I used a DJBDNS port on OpenBSD, and seriously regretted it. It was SO much easier to simply install following DJB's instructions than it was to find where things were put by the well-meaning porter. in some places I still have ancient homegrown ports that are full of errors. upgrades on tehse machines are STILL much easier than the ones that have shit compiled from source. -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: DJBware ports
2008/7/4 Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: * Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-01 03:12]: So, I'm a fan of DJBDNS, but, I have to ask: Why?!? I am not exactly a fan, but I am using it, and the hassle at upgrades alone (remember, recompile, yadda yadda yadda, versus handled with the regular pkg_add -ui) alone is worth the port. Do you normalize his directory layout, or do you maintain his suggested layout (which has its merits, but is VERY non-hier(7)). normalize! LONG, LONG ago, probably around the 2.7 days, I used a DJBDNS port on OpenBSD, and seriously regretted it. It was SO much easier to simply install following DJB's instructions than it was to find where things were put by the well-meaning porter. in some places I still have ancient homegrown ports that are full of errors. upgrades on tehse machines are STILL much easier than the ones that have shit compiled from source. In that spirit, I have made ports for these applications. I will not push for inclusion, I am merely showing my own work. If that can make the life of others simpler, I'm happy. Keep in mind that these ports where developed and tested on 4.3, not current. (I do this all the time, but usually keep up with changes announced on ports@ and test with current if I am pushing for inclusion). Note that all paths have been normalized for these ports except for the qmail one which will install in /var/qmail like something compiled from source. Also, the qmail users and groups should be created automatically with ids between 5000 and 5007. If want other ids, you will have to edit the makefile and the packing list (both of them). If you have any suggestions for improvements, I'll take them. Arnaud -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam ucspi-tcp.tgz Description: GNU Zip compressed data daemontools.tgz Description: GNU Zip compressed data djbdns.tgz Description: GNU Zip compressed data netqmail.tgz Description: GNU Zip compressed data
Re: DJBware ports
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 01:31:12PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: * Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-01 03:12]: So, I'm a fan of DJBDNS, but, I have to ask: Why?!? I am not exactly a fan, but I am using it, and the hassle at upgrades alone (remember, recompile, yadda yadda yadda, versus handled with the regular pkg_add -ui) alone is worth the port. Ditto. Do you normalize his directory layout, or do you maintain his suggested layout (which has its merits, but is VERY non-hier(7)). normalize! Yes! Ditto! LONG, LONG ago, probably around the 2.7 days, I used a DJBDNS port on OpenBSD, and seriously regretted it. It was SO much easier to simply install following DJB's instructions than it was to find where things were put by the well-meaning porter. in some places I still have ancient homegrown ports that are full of errors. upgrades on tehse machines are STILL much easier than the ones that have shit compiled from source. And if you've ever had to take over a machine with compiled-from-source + patches it's even more of a difference. Even with homegrown ports there is some documentation of what has been done. This is helpful for yourself, and crucial to anyone who follows later. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Re: DJBware ports
Don't know if my vote counts but here it is. normalize +1 daemontools dependency -1
Re: DJBware ports
On 2008/07/01 11:21, Roberto FERNANDEZ wrote: Don't know if my vote counts but here it is. normalize +1 daemontools dependency -1 Then it wouldn't be DJBDNS, and you are going against the author's wishes, and you are making things more difficult for users, some of whom *will*, whatever you tell them, try and follow a mixture of docs. Using this will suck. Answering emails asking for help will suck too (don't forget they won't just come on ports@, but also on djbdns-related mailing lists). If you're looking for a good normal DNS server that isn't BIND, we have good ones in ports; nsd (an authoritative server) and unbound (a caching recursive resolver). If you have chosen to use DJBDNS it's going to be based on reading about it beforehand, and then you will already know it is going to be different...
Re: DJBware ports
1 July 2008 г. 13:55:46 Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2008/07/01 11:21, Roberto FERNANDEZ wrote: Don't know if my vote counts but here it is. normalize +1 daemontools dependency -1 Then it wouldn't be DJBDNS, and you are going against the author's wishes, and you are making things more difficult for users, some of whom *will*, whatever you tell them, try and follow a mixture of docs. Using this will suck. Answering emails asking for help will suck too (don't forget they won't just come on ports@, but also on djbdns-related mailing lists). If you're looking for a good normal DNS server that isn't BIND, we have good ones in ports; nsd (an authoritative server) and unbound (a caching recursive resolver). If you have chosen to use DJBDNS it's going to be based on reading about it beforehand, and then you will already know it is going to be different... Well, if someone will create (and maintain, of course) a port, this'll not stop anyone who wants to compile djbdns directly from sources. So I don't see the point of blocking such effort. It's all about freedom to choose what to use. :) And in case of using native port and vulnerabilty (or other major problem) found in libc, for example, I do not need to proceed any steps other than total rebuilding/upgrading installed packages. Less maintenance, more free time, [what you wish here]. :) -- Best wishes, Vadim Zhukov
Re: DJBware ports
2008/6/30 Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Eduardo Alvarenga wrote: Hi guys, I'm willing to port all DJB's public domain software, including djbdns, qmail, daemontools, etc. If made, It can be easily accepted on ports or, for historical reasons, i will not be imported? snip Here are some of the issues that I know you will run into: Do you normalize his directory layout, or do you maintain his suggested layout (which has its merits, but is VERY non-hier(7)). IF you normalize his layouts, you annoy the current DJBDNS users and confuse the new ones. How do you propose to announce this to the port user and orient them appropriately? IF you don't normalize his directory layouts...I doubt they will be imported when you slop three new directories in /. I think about respecting hier(7) and follow /usr/local, then warn the user about creating symlinks to the original folders if he wishes. I personally use /etc/djbdns as the main folder, others don't. Do you maintain the DJBDNS dependency on daemontools, even though djbdns is one (er..two!) app(s) that just doesn't need to be restarted when it fails (because it doesn't)? daemontools will only be listed as a RUN dependency. The configuration will be up to the user that can choose to run it the way he wants, by using daemontools or not. IF you separate them, again, you will need to develop docs. The port is supposed to only install the software, and not to configure it. The SA needs to read the official documentation for that. IF you leave them together...what value do you add to the port? snip I think similar arguments can be made against a qmail port. Sure, I'll also respect hier and then allow the SA to create the necessary symlinks, or even create a script to make it more automatic. Some of his utility programs (ucspi-tcp) would be really handy ported, and I can not think of any issues involved there. So there's a partial yes. :) Regards, -- Eduardo Alvarenga
Re: DJBware ports
Vadim Zhukov wrote: 1 July 2008 ?. 13:55:46 Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2008/07/01 11:21, Roberto FERNANDEZ wrote: Don't know if my vote counts but here it is. normalize +1 daemontools dependency -1 Then it wouldn't be DJBDNS, and you are going against the author's wishes, and you are making things more difficult for users, some of whom *will*, whatever you tell them, try and follow a mixture of docs. Using this will suck. Answering emails asking for help will suck too (don't forget they won't just come on ports@, but also on djbdns-related mailing lists). If you're looking for a good normal DNS server that isn't BIND, we have good ones in ports; nsd (an authoritative server) and unbound (a caching recursive resolver). If you have chosen to use DJBDNS it's going to be based on reading about it beforehand, and then you will already know it is going to be different... Well, if someone will create (and maintain, of course) a port, this'll not stop anyone who wants to compile djbdns directly from sources. So I don't see the point of blocking such effort. It's all about freedom to choose what to use. :) No, it is about making OpenBSD and the application software easier to use, not creating things for maintainers to maintain that will irritate them and the users because you can. The existence or non-existence of the port does not impact someone's FREEDOM, just how they exercise that freedom. IF someone adopted djbdns to make it a standard and supported app, with its own support and documentation infrastructure, great, fine, I'd love to see it in ports, and if it really didn't suck (I'm not holding my breath...the chatter I saw on it a few months ago looked terrifyingly Linux-like...Hey, let's add EVERYTHING to it!), I'd switch to it, I would like to see the benefits of a pkg-* managed app. But to have a bastardized system that was completely contrary to the official documentation? No thanks. I'm not using it, and I'd actively argue that it should NOT be used by novice or advanced users. I do not think OpenBSD should become a support structure for a third party app that works JUST FINE before we screwed it up. This is what would have to happen. Creating a port of DJBDNS solves no real problem for anyone who should be running a DNS server. And yes, you should have at least a minimal amount of knowledge before attempting to do that. Nick.
DJBware ports
Hi guys, I'm willing to port all DJB's public domain software, including djbdns, qmail, daemontools, etc. If made, It can be easily accepted on ports or, for historical reasons, i will not be imported? Regards, -- Eduardo Alvarenga
Re: DJBware ports
Eduardo Alvarenga wrote: Hi guys, I'm willing to port all DJB's public domain software, including djbdns, qmail, daemontools, etc. If made, It can be easily accepted on ports or, for historical reasons, i will not be imported? I'm not a porter, I don't have final say in this at all, but: 1) DJBDNS is my DNS tool of choice. 2) I think BIND sucked before I learned BIND. 3) I think BIND sucks even more since I have learned it. 4) BIND sucks less since they learned a little from DJB 5) I highly respect DJB's I'm doing it as I know is right, I don't care what you think attitude. ;) So, I'm a fan of DJBDNS, but, I have to ask: Why?!? Here are some of the issues that I know you will run into: Do you normalize his directory layout, or do you maintain his suggested layout (which has its merits, but is VERY non-hier(7)). IF you normalize his layouts, you annoy the current DJBDNS users and confuse the new ones. How do you propose to announce this to the port user and orient them appropriately? IF you don't normalize his directory layouts...I doubt they will be imported when you slop three new directories in /. Do you maintain the DJBDNS dependency on daemontools, even though djbdns is one (er..two!) app(s) that just doesn't need to be restarted when it fails (because it doesn't)? IF you separate them, again, you will need to develop docs. IF you leave them together...what value do you add to the port? This app was developed ON OpenBSD...it installs on OpenBSD as well or better than any other OS. On the probably the slowest machine you would be likely to want to run a DNS server on (a P100 with a really slow disk attached to a really slow IDE controler (wdc(4)!), it took ten minutes to build, install and test. An experienced user might spend close to that trying to figure out where things went, and a new user won't find their life simplified. LONG, LONG ago, probably around the 2.7 days, I used a DJBDNS port on OpenBSD, and seriously regretted it. It was SO much easier to simply install following DJB's instructions than it was to find where things were put by the well-meaning porter. I don't see how a port of the stock DJBDNS benefits anyone. People who know and love DJBDNS won't use it, new users who should learn it will be confused by it...so what is the point? That being said, I do believe there are some people who are working on taking the PD'ed DJBDNS package and bringing it up-to-date. Assuming they normalize the directory layout and document it appropriately and don't screw it up beyond all recognition (those are three big IFs there) I'd have no objection to that being made a port, and in fact, I'd welcome it, but not a port just so we can say, look! DJBDNS in ports!. I think similar arguments can be made against a qmail port. Some of his utility programs (ucspi-tcp) would be really handy ported, and I can not think of any issues involved there. So there's a partial yes. :) Nick.
