Re: question to package maintainers

Having OpenSSL and LibreSSL living together on the same system seems reasonable. Surely name conflicts can be worked around somehow? Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many people run OpenSMTP on the offending systems compared to OpenBSD? Cheers, Tim Hume. > On 24 Dec 2015, at 03:06,

Re: question to package maintainers

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 07:25:36PM +1100, Tim Hume wrote: > Having OpenSSL and LibreSSL living together on the same system seems > reasonable. Surely name conflicts can be worked around somehow? > That's my point ;-) > Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many people run OpenSMTP on the >

Re: question to package maintainers

Just before we dive further into this thread, I'd like to clarify that the reason for this debate is really to help establish a strategy forward, not a way to push for a change next week disregarding packagers. I want to be sure I understand the limiting factors here and there, so the change CAN

Re: question to package maintainers

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 09:42:56AM +0100, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many people run OpenSMTP on > > the offending systems compared to OpenBSD? According to Debian popcon (an opt-in "popularity contest" for packages), there are >= 19 people with opensmtpd

Re: question to package maintainers

> On 24 Dec 2015, at 02:16, Gilles Chehade wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 07:56:25PM +0600, Denis Fateyev wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gilles Chehade wrote: >>> >>> >>> Would your distribution be affected if LibreSSL became a

Re: question to package maintainers

On Dec 24, 2015 7:31 PM, "Gilles Chehade" wrote: > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 07:17:12PM +0600, Denis Fateyev wrote: > > > > Well, you asked what distributions packagers thought, and I presented it > > from point of the specific distribution. There are always some issues, not > >

Re: question to package maintainers

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 07:56:25PM +0600, Denis Fateyev wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > > > > Would your distribution be affected if LibreSSL became a requirement ? > > > > OpenSMTPD is starting to rely on LibreSSL-specific functions that

Re: question to package maintainers

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 07:56:02AM -0800, Richard wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > > What I'm wondering is if there's any reason that would prevent RHEL, for > > example, to package LibreSSL in the same way that libasr was packaged so > > that OpenSMTPD could specifically

Re: question to package maintainers

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > Would your distribution be affected if LibreSSL became a requirement ? > > OpenSMTPD is starting to rely on LibreSSL-specific functions that will > force us to go through painful hacks to maintain that dual SSL support

Re: question to package maintainers

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015, Gilles Chehade wrote: > What I'm wondering is if there's any reason that would prevent RHEL, for > example, to package LibreSSL in the same way that libasr was packaged so > that OpenSMTPD could specifically depend on it. > > The system would keep its default SSL library. >

Re: question to package maintainers

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > What I'm wondering is if there's any reason that would prevent RHEL, for > example, to package LibreSSL in the same way that libasr was packaged so > that OpenSMTPD could specifically depend on it. > > The system would

question to package maintainers

Hi, Would your distribution be affected if LibreSSL became a requirement ? OpenSMTPD is starting to rely on LibreSSL-specific functions that will force us to go through painful hacks to maintain that dual SSL support and I'd like to know if switching to a LibreSSL-only mode is an option at this

Re: Package maintainers

.com> a écrit : > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Gilles Chehade <gil...@poolp.org> wrote: > >> EHLO package maintainers, >> >> It would be nice if we had a list and-or IRC channel to communicate with >> you and synchronize before releases. >> >> Sho

Re: Package maintainers

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 19:41:42 +0200, Gilles Chehade <gil...@poolp.org> said: | EHLO package maintainers, | It would be nice if we had a list and-or IRC channel to communicate with | you and synchronize before releases. | Should I setup something ? Sure, although I think there was an IRC c

Package maintainers

EHLO package maintainers, It would be nice if we had a list and-or IRC channel to communicate with you and synchronize before releases. Should I setup something ? -- Gilles Chehade https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg -- You received this mail because you

Heads-Up Package Maintainers

Ohai, For some reason, the tarball for 5.4.5p1 contained files used by the autotools stuff which were more recent than source files, and caused a bit of issues to some of you. As some package maintainers have worked around the issue, I couldn't just push a new fixed tarball with same version

Re: RFC: package maintainers

Hi, On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 10:11:08 -0400, Ryan Kavanagh r...@debian.org said: [...] 2) Add an additional option specifying the subdirectory under which opensmtpd-specific config files should go, say localconfdir, which defaults to %(sysconfdir)/opensmtpd/: a) Install aliases to

Re: RFC: package maintainers

Hi there, On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Gilles Chehade gil...@poolp.org wrote: Upstream we do not really have a strong opinion and we'll do whatever makes it easier for most maintainers. This means that we're not opposed to adding brand new configure flags if it can help solving

Re: RFC: package maintainers

On 2013-10-26 19:01, Denis Fateyev wrote: Hello there, On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Sébastien Luttringer se...@seblu.netwrote: Nothing wrong with this substitution. opensmtpd alias config file should be inside opensmtpd configuration directory. It shouldn't. At least, in Debian

Re: RFC: package maintainers

On 26/10/2013 00:48, Denis Fateyev wrote: Hi there, To describe this issue in some details: we have a problem on portable when trying to place smtpd.conf not into `%{sysconfdir}` which is usually `/etc`, but into another directory (`/etc/opensmtpd`, for example.) Reason: opensmtpd always

Re: RFC: package maintainers

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Sébastien Luttringer se...@seblu.netwrote: So why not keep sysconfdir and set a default value to /etc/smtpd (default pool is /var/spool/smtpd) instead of using a non standard new value? The default value should be then `/etc/opensmtpd` since we agreed during

Re: RFC: package maintainers

On 26/10/2013 01:37, Denis Fateyev wrote: The default value should be then `/etc/opensmtpd` since we agreed during the last conversation with Charles, that package should be called opensmtpd in portable. While the name is the same in /var/spool and /etc by default and I can override the both

Re: RFC: package maintainers

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Sébastien Luttringer se...@seblu.netwrote: - And it's the source of the problem... - This is definitely not a good idea since... - we definitely shouldn't touch... I disagree. It's the purpose of this variable! sysconfdir is the path to your package