From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 13 12:54:06 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70030D64 for ; Wed, 13 May 2015 12:54:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32C4713AF for ; Wed, 13 May 2015 12:54:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so114174782igb.0 for ; Wed, 13 May 2015 05:54:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Vs4QMf1TcKeGzCSVM/4lAavYG9J36O52DLT7pYpBtSw=; b=sGher98DoOhLOmxuA2kRvpMqi6/m/OpS4E0pLXfYqjzD4w0sxO1ECxbkZfRmNDcSQA L3iIGbliAq/nBsnwbR3/Q/mH6zvdk2ajJcaLW3JEO3KXoZOfcSx26Gu9qvL7AA6W/qtK siWUx04kEYId3VPSs4nYMsbdurQ2EBn/JPR9z/Ng9jM+sQmkFeGyAOJqOVRzCVyrkdK4 98oUedbB7C8tUhH4YUbXC5leXON2MJfe95qGLYMMVNbEidcYJIZiPkmRXtMcpYV7FBcr GFgWn7+8iGMxKaNQecqgO1X29LyL1F2q+tBSy/NQJsP7xdKBitbBMVdltgg/z8iCJmv5 K81Q== X-Received: by 10.50.30.197 with SMTP id u5mr28419374igh.9.1431521645540; Wed, 13 May 2015 05:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.10.5] (cpe-76-190-244-6.neo.res.rr.com. [76.190.244.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qh9sm3491431igb.20.2015.05.13.05.54.04 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 13 May 2015 05:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55534973.60701@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 08:54:11 -0400 From: Ernie Luzar User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carmel NY CC: FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: www/firefox really depends on security/openssl? References: <20150509125643.0bda93e6@kirk.drpetervoigt.private> <554EEBB5.8010304@rawbw.com> <20150511202110.34e6e29c@kirk.drpetervoigt.private> <55510C22.9050900@rawbw.com> <20150512000259.32a44ec4@kirk.drpetervoigt.private> <55512E8F.8040508@rawbw.com> <20150512022857.7230c163@kirk.drpetervoigt.private> <55515251.5040503@rawbw.com> <20150512112505.5f36f0b2@kirk.drpetervoigt.private> <5551DB5A.7090508@rawbw.com> <20150513012435.1912fdc2@kirk.drpetervoigt.private> <55533883.8010900@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 12:54:06 -0000 Carmel NY wrote: > On Wed, 13 May 2015 07:41:55 -0400, Ernie Luzar stated: > > >> I am having the same problem. Many things missing from the base openssl >> that are in the port openssl. >> Installing the port version only complicates things by not knowing which >> directory structure is really in play. >> My suggestion is just have the base OS source contain everything the >> openssl port installs. >> > > Basically, that is what I stated. Simply have the "base" version mirror the > "port's" version. Another, perhaps even simpler method would be to have the > "port's" version [overwrite|replace] the base system if a user decides to > install the port's version. A new user could be given the option of > installing the older "base" system or the newer "port's" version when first > installing FreeBSD. > > This problem is NOT unsolvable; however, for whatever reason, it doesn't seem > to be getting any traction either. It sort of reminds me of a problem with the > "slapd" rc file that has never been ratified. > > Maybe it takes a PR to shine light on this problem as the subject of this post is no longer valid