Courier from ports without FAM? or securing FAM.
From: Francisco Reyes (lists_at_natserv.com)
Date: 10/16/05
- Previous message: Francisco Reyes: "Re: Distributed authentication. Which one?"
- Next in thread: Brian Candler: "Re: Courier from ports without FAM? or securing FAM."
- Reply: Brian Candler: "Re: Courier from ports without FAM? or securing FAM."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 01:34:56 -0400 (EDT) To: FreeBSD ISP list <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>
Got courier working, however it keeps getting built with FAM even though I
told the port not to use it.
Looking at the makefile I saw
.if defined(WITH_FAM) || exists(${LOCALBASE}/lib/libfam.so)
CONFIGURE_ENV= CPPFLAGS="-I${LOCALBASE}/include" \
LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS}"
LDFLAGS+= -L${LOCALBASE}/lib
LIB_DEPENDS+= fam.0:${PORTSDIR}/devel/fam
.endif
So I commented them all out.. still built with FAM. :-(
Unforntunately I had FAM already installed and it seems the port compiles
against it if present.. even after commenting the lines above.
If it will be easier to keep it then I would like to secure it.
Could not find on the archives what would be the best way to keep
FAM/portmaper (which seems is needed for FAM) secure.
Anyone familiar with Courier could comment on how usefull is FAM for
users? Is it worth the trouble/security risk?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-isp@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-isp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Francisco Reyes: "Re: Distributed authentication. Which one?"
- Next in thread: Brian Candler: "Re: Courier from ports without FAM? or securing FAM."
- Reply: Brian Candler: "Re: Courier from ports without FAM? or securing FAM."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|