Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:26:32 +0300 From: "Vladimir Chukharev" <Vladimir.Chukharev@tut.fi> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@freebsd.org> Cc: Dirk Meyer <dirk.meyer@dinoex.sub.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mk/bsd.openssl.mk optimization Message-ID: <op.ue3reildpcmiy5@localhost> In-Reply-To: <48904BDC.1010706@FreeBSD.org> References: <op.ueqfl1xy0g54sc@localhost> <08GlBzRclM@dmeyer.dinoex.sub.org> <op.ueumske80g54sc@localhost> <op.ueuwd8rs0g54sc@localhost> <488A0B2E.9070403@FreeBSD.org> <op.ue17xeex0g54sc@localhost> <op.ue3qhisl0g54sc@localhost> <48904BDC.1010706@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:09:16 +0300, Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org> wrote: > V.Chukharev wrote: >> I have found why there is a difference in INDEX-7 generated with and without caching. >> Without cache security/p5-openxpki* (6 connected ports) are indexed as depending on >> both openssl-0.9.8h_1 and openssl-beta-0.9.8h_1 (beta is not actually installed), >> while with cache the second dependence is lost. This is due to WITH_OPENSSL_BETA >> defined in security/p5-openxpki/Makefile (master for other slave ports). >> >> So, Dirk, you are right, cashing breaks current behavior. > > No, it means that you need to add extra checks to how the cached value > is used. This is also true, but it might be spreaded over many ports and/or bsd.*.mk files... > Kris > >> But now I wonder if the current behavior is correct and if security/p5-openxpki is >> correct. IMHO at least one of the two dependences is in err. Can you comment on this? >>> Best regards, >>> Vladimir >>> >>>> Kris >>>> >> > -- Vladimir Chukharev Tampere University of Technology
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.ue3reildpcmiy5>