Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:29:05 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Dependencies: base vs. ports (Was: Re: ports/187468) Message-ID: <20140313162905.GB15587@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <CACdU%2Bf_eqV8mFBK-4PN33r8RVfdr4OxB0TigSUHFtRro-PDksw@mail.gmail.com> References: <531FAF5D.1010207@FreeBSD.org> <20140312044851.GA28621@FreeBSD.org> <53204C90.4050103@FreeBSD.org> <20140313084240.GA15587@over-yonder.net> <CACdU%2Bf_eqV8mFBK-4PN33r8RVfdr4OxB0TigSUHFtRro-PDksw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 08:22:08AM -0500 I heard the voice of
Scot Hetzel, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> This was caused by the port maintainer deciding to force the port to
> always us the base version of OpenSSL on FreeBSD >= 10. Instead of
> letting the sysadmin decide on which to use (port / base).
That imputes rather more specific intent than I think is really called
for; it's just as easy to read as "didn't consider the case of
somebody on >= 10 wanting to use port openssl instead at all" rather
than "chose to disallow $PREV". But either way, I think it makes my
point; it's a fringe-enough option that there are liable to be
landmines waiting. And I'm confident that Murphy has me on
speed-dial, so they're sure to be in places I'm going to need on 5
minutes notice sometime.
Whereas is there _is_ no /usr/lib/lib{ssl,crypto}, it can't create a
messy conflict 8-}
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140313162905.GB15587>