DJBware ports

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

DJBware ports

Eduardo Alvarenga
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DJBware ports

Nick Holland
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DJBware ports

Roberto Fernandez-3
Don't know if my vote counts but here it is.

normalize +1
daemontools dependency -1

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DJBware ports

Stuart Henderson
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"...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DJBware ports

Vadim Zhukov
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DJBware ports

Eduardo Alvarenga
In reply to this post by Nick Holland
2008/6/30 Nick Holland <[hidden email]>:
>
> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DJBware ports

Nick Holland
In reply to this post by Vadim Zhukov
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DJBware ports

Henning Brauer-8
In reply to this post by Nick Holland
* Nick <[hidden email]> [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, [hidden email], [hidden email]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DJBware ports

Arnaud Bergeron
2008/7/4 Henning Brauer <[hidden email]>:

> * Nick <[hidden email]> [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, [hidden email], [hidden email]
> 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 (2K) Download Attachment
daemontools.tgz (2K) Download Attachment
djbdns.tgz (1K) Download Attachment
netqmail.tgz (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DJBware ports

Darrin Chandler
In reply to this post by Henning Brauer-8
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 01:31:12PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Nick <[hidden email]> [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
[hidden email]   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DJBware ports

Michael Knudsen-3
In reply to this post by Henning Brauer-8
Quoting Henning Brauer ([hidden email]):
[..]
> > 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!)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DJBware ports

Henning Brauer-8
* Michael Knudsen <[hidden email]> [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, [hidden email], [hidden email]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DJBware ports

Jim Razmus
In reply to this post by Arnaud Bergeron
* Arnaud Bergeron <[hidden email]> [080704 10:54]:

> 2008/7/4 Henning Brauer <[hidden email]>:
> > * Nick <[hidden email]> [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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DJBware ports

Arnaud Bergeron
> 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
>