From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Feb 19 2:20:24 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from rucus.ru.ac.za (rucus.ru.ac.za [146.231.29.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A1E71159C for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:15:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nbm@rucus.ru.ac.za) Received: (qmail 28223 invoked by uid 1003); 19 Feb 1999 12:15:46 -0000 Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:15:46 +0000 From: Neil Blakey-Milner To: Stefan `Sec` Zehl Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/10134: New port: lynx-ssl (Category: www) Message-ID: <19990219121545.A25449@rucus.ru.ac.za> References: <199902172320.PAA76120@freefall.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <199902172320.PAA76120@freefall.freebsd.org>; from Stefan `Sec` Zehl on Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 03:20:01PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed 1999-02-17 (15:20), Stefan `Sec` Zehl wrote: > > I haven't looked at the port yet, but is this just a modified version of the > > lynx port, with something like --enable-ssl turned on? It may be more > > efficient to just add a USE_SSL variable in the port makefile and hang off > > that. > > It does fetch an extra patch. And it it is "RESTRICTED" due to use of > crypto code. Reason enough for a new port IMHO. How about adding to the existing port: .if defined(USE_SSL) RESTRICTED= "Contains cryptography" PATCH_SITES+= http://foo.bar.example.org/ PATCHFILES+= ssl_patch.gz .endif Of course, this may lead to problems if lynx advances faster than the patches come out by a large pace. Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner nbm@rucus.ru.ac.za To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message