Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:03:05 +0600
From:      Muhammad Moinur Rahman <5u623l20@gmail.com>
To:        Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Force Dependent ports OPTIONS
Message-ID:  <CA%2BnPUkw7KOp%2BbrtXf8gc-MAq%2B3WOm3jk8HttLg39AQizVNkD8g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131205114534.GG76976@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
References:  <CA%2BnPUkw3zqCDRiKf1LbZsV6g4oxdNGWoe79CBKXqAgVn16QB_Q@mail.gmail.com> <20131205114534.GG76976@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Bapte,

RFC3779.

BR,
Muhammad


On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 05:42:15PM +0600, Muhammad Moinur Rahman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Let us suppose I am porting an application which depends on Openssl. But
> > not only OpenSSL, OpenSSL has to have some options enabled which are not
> > enabled by default. How can I force changing the knob?
> >
> > Slave port is an option I have thought. But anything else? Thanks in
> > advance.
> >
>
> Creating a slave port will be a nightmare for openssl, what option are you
> depending on? is it intrusive, does it make sense to have it by default?
>
> Those are the questions, depending on answers the good way could be to
> remove
> the option from the openssl port and activate by default the feature.
>
> regards,
> Bapt
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BnPUkw7KOp%2BbrtXf8gc-MAq%2B3WOm3jk8HttLg39AQizVNkD8g>