Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 09:06:33 +0900 From: Tatsuki Makino <tatsuki_makino@hotmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: security/openssl switching to 3.0 branch Message-ID: <SI2PR01MB50368721C37B204763774016FAD5A@SI2PR01MB5036.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> In-Reply-To: <9e2b9b33-0ef5-49d6-8580-fd01518044cf@groumpf.org> References: <92667a5ea6afeab7ce9c55528af34f49@freebsd.org> <48b835a442707d7b8db4f4b270c12897@freebsd.org> <9e2b9b33-0ef5-49d6-8580-fd01518044cf@groumpf.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello. Xavier Humbert wrote on 2023/10/17 15:41: > DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= ssl=openssl111 We who want to keep 1.1.1 should just do that thing we always do, right? The pkg version results would show the following. openssl-1.1.1w,1 < needs updating (index has 3.0.11,1) security/openssl111 has PKGNAMESUFFIX, so rename it. pkg set -n openssl:openssl111 Origin is also moving. pkg set -o security/openssl:security/openssl111 Will these changes also update the local.sqlite deps table? :) If openssl is allowed to be built again, portmaster is used as follows portmaster -o security/openssl111 openssl-1.1.1w,1 After this, restart all processes using openssl to give up the handle to the unlinked library. Such a procedure would require the least amount of effort, would it not? Regards.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?SI2PR01MB50368721C37B204763774016FAD5A>