From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 30 05:22:28 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE07537B401 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 05:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asterix.rsu.ru (asterix.rsu.ru [195.208.245.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CDA544059 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 05:22:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from os@rsu.ru) Received: from brain.cc.rsu.ru (os@brain.cc.rsu.ru [195.208.252.154]) (authenticated bits=0) by asterix.rsu.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3UCMHR7013501 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:22:18 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from os@rsu.ru) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:22:13 +0400 (MSD) From: Oleg Sharoiko X-X-Sender: os@brain.cc.rsu.ru To: ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030430155012.A68031@brain.cc.rsu.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none version=2.53 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) cc: Wheel of RSUNet Subject: X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:22:29 -0000 Hello! I'd appreciate if someone clarify several issues concerning bsd.port.mk, bsd.port.pre.mk/bsd.port.post.mk: First of all, as far as I understand bsd.port.mk and bsd.port.pre.mk+bsd.port.post.mk are two different ways of doing the same things. If it is so, than what's the preferred method? I suppose it's .pre+.post because it gives more flexibility. If this is true than shouldn't the entire ports tree be moving towards using .pre+.post but not bsd.port.mk? Second, it's possible to build some applications both as ports and as parts of base system. Good example is OpenSSL. Such a possibility (of building it as port or as part of base systems) brings up a problem of specifying dependency in ports which depend on OpenSSL. There are currently two ways the port can depend on OpenSSL: 1. The port may include bsd.port.mk and define USE_OPENSSL. In this case port will be compiled only with OpenSSL in the base system. 2. The port may include bsd.port.pre.mk, bsd.port.post.mk and security/openssl/bsd.openssl.mk. Such a combination allows for user to specify which version of openssl is desired. As for me the second way is far much better than the first one. I'd like to know your opinions since some port maintainers disagree. They suggest installing OpenSSL from ports overwriting the base installation. I don't think that overwriting the base installation it the right thing. Overall: are there any rules for defining dependencies which can be both the part of base system or a port? Any port that depend on openssl/openssh/sendmail/cvs/... should use similar mechanism. Have it been worked out? Shouldn't bsd.openssl.mk be the way to go? In case .pre + .post by some reasons isn't the right thing than bsd.port.mk should definitely be fixed. It simply disallows the usage of openssl from ports, what I think is wrong (as well as the overwriting the base installation with openssl is). Thank you for your attention. p.s. We're not on the list, so please keep our emails in the To: or Cc: -- Oleg Sharoiko. Software and Network Engineer Computer Center of Rostov State University.