Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 21:12:33 +0100 From: "Joe Holden" <mail@m.jwh.me.uk> To: "'Christian Weisgerber'" <naddy@mips.inka.de>, <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: openntpd-5.7p4_2,2 depends on libressl-2.2.6 ?! Message-ID: <01b001d22fc5$49cb78e0$dd626aa0$@m.jwh.me.uk> In-Reply-To: <slrnnqjphg.t8q.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> References: <2E32FD64-2BF6-46CE-BAD2-39AF82E29E33@ellael.org> <56E1BA30.7090306@utanet.at> <010201d1ec8d$b1e53ef0$15afbcd0$@m.jwh.me.uk> <slrnnqjphg.t8q.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- > ports@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Christian Weisgerber > Sent: 09 August 2016 15:18 > To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: openntpd-5.7p4_2,2 depends on libressl-2.2.6 ?! > > On 2016-08-02, "Joe Holden" <mail@m.jwh.me.uk> wrote: > > > That is not a fix since it breaks at least nginx in the official repo, > > because nginx depends on openssl and openntpd depends on libre. > > > > Either the entire tree should move to a library supported by everything, or > > the openntpd port gets split into meta packages so that we don't need to > > return to a stage where everyone is building ports. > > > > Was this not even considered or tested? > > I put the blame on the people who thought it a good idea to have > FIVE only partially compatible SSL libraries in the tree: OpenSSL > in base, openssl, openssl-devel, libressl, libressl-devel. > Yes, it is a ridiculous situation but since there appears to be zero coordination between ports committers, probably expected. > Bernard Spil (brnrd) has worked hard on moving the entire tree to > LibreSSL, but the political will is missing. > > Like other software coming out of OpenBSD, OpenNTPD now requires > libtls for its https functionality. That's a new library with a > new API that doesn't exist in OpenSSL. The constraints check is a > standard feature of OpenNTPD. If you run OpenNTPD, you expect it > to be available. I have no intention of disabling this by default > and it requires libtls. > Breaking existing install bases because of an *optional* feature is really a shitty attitude, it is not OpenBSD, therefore does not need feature parity - it is a *port* of OpenNNTPD, by your logic I should be able to use rdomains in software ported from OpenBSD yes? While we're here, PF is from OpenBSD so I expect it to be the same as 6.0. > > (Cc naddy) > > Sorry, I somehow didn't get this. > > -- > Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01b001d22fc5$49cb78e0$dd626aa0$>