From nobody Mon Aug 05 16:40:04 2024 X-Original-To: ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Wd2H46K4Lz5SKd3 for ; Mon, 05 Aug 2024 16:40:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from soth.netfence.it (mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mailserver.netfence.it", Issuer "R11" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Wd2H328TJz4cWy for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2024 16:40:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=netfence.it header.s=202407 header.b=e7diOpKt; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=netfence.it; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of ml@netfence.it designates 78.134.96.152 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ml@netfence.it Received: from [10.1.2.18] (mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152]) (authenticated bits=0) by soth.netfence.it (8.18.1/8.17.2) with ESMTPSA id 475Ge4Ip098306 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:40:04 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfence.it; s=202407; t=1722876007; bh=+qgct0dmDaw/UbNonw8ojPc9qLqMh6vfmQ4lRmbd2cI=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=e7diOpKtl1EQbZcFO8D5Ro0Cmck701ZZxRAWPyq/83OfrIoACkGh3wKUpbAFzUsEG o0h6T1OFm+AakwQIgcJ01uwgehGNypeYQ80Izbsh9RTSegLVREbLnmYIY9kpuextOW 3SAC3C768a8lYhGQZnyggIVyyClE6GiSveRoCsDg= X-Authentication-Warning: soth.netfence.it: Host mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152] claimed to be [10.1.2.18] Message-ID: <7ac174de-523a-4ede-9455-7617ab7a5ed3@netfence.it> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:40:04 +0200 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Samba and Netatalk (any package using talloc) cannot coexist Content-Language: en-US To: ports@freebsd.org, andrew.lemin@gmail.com References: <772ADD54-3DA0-40E9-A6B0-365141059A51@gmail.com> From: Andrea Venturoli In-Reply-To: <772ADD54-3DA0-40E9-A6B0-365141059A51@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.86 X-Spamd-Bar: --- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.99 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.999]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[netfence.it,none]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[netfence.it:s=202407]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:78.134.96.152]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[netfence.it:+]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[freebsd.org,gmail.com]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:35612, ipnet:78.134.0.0/17, country:IT]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[ports@freebsd.org]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Wd2H328TJz4cWy On 8/5/24 16:15, Andy Lemin wrote: > Hi List! Hello. > I reported this to Netatalk, and they advised that we ask your opinions? I'm not the port maintainer, but I'll try to answer anyway... > Simply samba419 port demands that talloc is _not_ installed, as samba > bundles talloc. That's an option: you can try modifying the value of SAMBA4_BUNDLED_TALLOC in the Makefile to no. I'm not sure it will even build, however. See: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=280510 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=280557 > However this means that no other packages (including Netatalk) can also > use talloc on the same server, as trying to install talloc results in > samba being removed. That's the rationale behind those bug reports. > Conflict causing one or the other to be removed; > 'talloc-2.3.4_1 conflicts with samba419-4.19.7 on > /usr/local/lib/python3.11/site-packages/talloc.cpython-311.so' > > We can understand why samba want to bundle talloc, but wonder if this is > actually a porting issue instead? It *is* a porting issue. bye av.