From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri May 10 12:32:28 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37041787
 for <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 10 May 2013 12:32:28 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com)
Received: from mail-ia0-x22c.google.com (mail-ia0-x22c.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::22c])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 115C06AE
 for <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 10 May 2013 12:32:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ia0-f172.google.com with SMTP id i20so4614106ian.31
 for <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 10 May 2013 05:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:x-received:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :content-type; bh=4aKPYjC3wuz4m2mafLoU8Svgzr8/YwPIAASZ6OyGLOg=;
 b=Oj9LyOfBV63NN4pzuKPwttHGoh33zi1ca/rulc90fsPwhyXWJmGpf0mfgCN8VAWAHi
 QFrJXayyk+cm+tQbA+Px7NvQEBk9JWqzGIA9LfwuWFJLwAnNybdxIfc7pm7NjDcxe7hP
 Ig/SjiUo964Tg6K7cQu3a9Joifc1G4gVjMKq5qAwGcC4d8xnXJu3indDOgOw36vVnvTP
 ZWuYaqVmTK2LIGJ0p4OZcRaGCzD8/B+yz+3riRN0E17rf2kFpk/POxiBH+Tg3GpMBh9U
 5zUzIHSYlqUaVjiu0CqmFPeFEKFBFPIMMnNru/JuwHXSt/gnPtgA9U1hTEoz0UE0qb9Y
 /irg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.132.105 with SMTP id ot9mr1751958igb.57.1368189147731;
 Fri, 10 May 2013 05:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.171.102 with HTTP; Fri, 10 May 2013 05:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 12:32:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGFTUwNH6pb4B0QYw+YojwXRa-5FDszXugZ1-OttKZqyjqTT=g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ports/119546
From: "b.f." <bf1783@googlemail.com>
To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bf1783@gmail.com
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 12:32:28 -0000

Andrea wrote:

...

> I had a look at /usr/ports/net/openldap23-server/Makefile and only found:
> > USE_OPENSSL=            yes
>
> AFAICT this does not give any preference wrt to base vs port openssl; if
> I'm correct this means the port is choosen if installed, but, otherwise,
> openssl from base is used.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to use base only? Put a knot to give the user a
> choice?
>
> Would I screw too many things if I tried adding:
> > WITH_OPENSSL_BASE=yes

Yes, because then the additions to the check-depends target in
ports/Mk/bsd.openssl.mk would cause unsandboxed builds of the port on
a live system to fail when security/openssl is installed.  Adding
WITH_OPENSSL_BASE to port Makefiles should be avoided for this reason.

b.