On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Subscriber wrote:
Would the powers that be please consider removing sendmail,
bind and openssl from the base system, as was done for perl
with 5.0?
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum, and the consensus has always
been that those three things (and openssh) should stay
D'oh, I forgot the other half of my response (I KNOW you're disappointed
by this). :)
A big part of the reason that perl was cut is that bmake'ing the build was
a NIGHTMARE. By contrast, the BIND bmake glue is not terribly difficult to
maintain. The other contributing factors were the license
Thus spake Subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Would the powers that be please consider removing sendmail,
bind and openssl from the base system, as was done for perl
with 5.0?
Please don't restart this flamewar. When we have a better
installer, then it may be possible in the future to select
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:54:13AM -, Subscriber wrote:
Having just done two rebuilds for recent OpenSSL and sendmail
vulnerabilities, I was surprised to discover that building the port
of apache13-modssl required the build of a port version of
OpenSSL when I had the most updated (4.7)
Subscriber wrote:
Would the powers that be please consider removing sendmail,
bind and openssl from the base system, as was done for perl
with 5.0?
There are /etc/make.conf variables to control this so you can do
it for yourself:
#NO_BIND= true# do not build BIND
#NO_OPENSSH=
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:43:15AM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:54:13AM -, Subscriber wrote:
Having just done two rebuilds for recent OpenSSL and sendmail
vulnerabilities, I was surprised to discover that building the port
of apache13-modssl required the
I use this command in my build script to force apache13+modssl to use
the openssl in base.
# Use base openssl (OpenSSL 0.9.7a as of Feb 19 2003)
cd /usr/ports/www/apache13-modssl
cp Makefile Makefile-
sed -ie 's/^\.include.*Makefile\.ssl.*$/OPENSSLBASE=\/usr/' Makefile- Makefile
You wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:54:28AM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
At least in the case of net/net-snmp the problem is that the shared lib
version of the openssl port was bumped when the base wasn't which screws
up the dependencies. :-(
That's part of the problem. The port bumped the shared
I have both apache-modssl and net-snmp running, but do NOT have the
openssl port installed. Everything builds and runs fine, with no
mods to anything. I conjecture that the problem others experience
is that they have installed the openssl port, which I have never done.
This is on both current
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:15:29PM -0500, Barney Wolff wrote:
I have both apache-modssl and net-snmp running, but do NOT have the
openssl port installed. Everything builds and runs fine, with no
mods to anything. I conjecture that the problem others experience
is that they have installed the
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Adrian Steinmann wrote:
I use this command in my build script to force apache13+modssl to use
the openssl in base.
# Use base openssl (OpenSSL 0.9.7a as of Feb 19 2003)
cd /usr/ports/www/apache13-modssl
cp Makefile Makefile-
sed -ie
On Wed Mar 05, 2003 at 02:29:00PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Adrian Steinmann wrote:
I use this command in my build script to force apache13+modssl to use
the openssl in base.
# Use base openssl (OpenSSL 0.9.7a as of Feb 19 2003)
cd /usr/ports/www/apache13-modssl
On 2003-03-05 02:14:16 (-0800), Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Subscriber wrote:
Would the powers that be please consider removing sendmail, bind and
openssl from the base system, as was done for perl with 5.0?
For example, as BIND maintainer I actually _support_
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, The Anarcat wrote:
Juste jumping in... Couldn't you just:
sed -i.orig -e pattern Makefile
No, because sed -i is evil, and will cause you to have hairy palms.
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Wed Mar 05, 2003 at 03:52:22PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, The Anarcat wrote:
Juste jumping in... Couldn't you just:
sed -i.orig -e pattern Makefile
No, because sed -i is evil, and will cause you to have hairy palms.
What?
A.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Philip Paeps wrote:
Is it actually possible for one to build a custom release without the
``unnecessary'' BIND bits? I haven't grepped the source, forgive me,
but what does 'NO_BIND=true' actually do? If I were to make a release
like that, would that end me up without
On 2003-03-05 16:46:04 (-0800), Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Philip Paeps wrote:
Is it actually possible for one to build a custom release without the
``unnecessary'' BIND bits? I haven't grepped the source, forgive me, but
what does 'NO_BIND=true' actually do?
At 2:07 AM +0100 2003/03/06, Philip Paeps wrote:
Speaking of ndc, I think that's a BIND8-ism.
Indeed, it is. With BIND-9, ndc won't even work -- Unix sockets
aren't supported, and IP sockets are secured with crypto keys.
Could the port be
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Philip Paeps wrote:
That way, both named and ndc see the same picture of the system, in and
out of the chroot tree.
Speaking of ndc, I think that's a BIND8-ism.
Not _exactly_ true, but yes, ndc is what you use to manage BIND 8. All
comparisons to tools that you may or
On 2003-03-06 02:17:19 (+0100), Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2:07 AM +0100 2003/03/06, Philip Paeps wrote:
Speaking of ndc, I think that's a BIND8-ism.
Indeed, it is. With BIND-9, ndc won't even work
I discovered that the unpleasant way. Typing ndc gave me a long list of
20 matches
Mail list logo
