From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org  Sun Oct 15 18:15:32 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA1AE48362
 for <freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:15:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yuri@rawbw.com)
Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8778C8203F
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:15:32 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from yuri@rawbw.com)
Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix)
 id 83AB6E48361; Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:15:32 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83385E48360
 for <ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>; Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:15:32 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from yuri@rawbw.com)
Received: from shell1.rawbw.com (shell1.rawbw.com [198.144.192.42])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592848203E
 for <ports@freebsd.org>; Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:15:32 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from yuri@rawbw.com)
Received: from yv.noip.me (c-24-6-186-56.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.6.186.56])
 (authenticated bits=0)
 by shell1.rawbw.com (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id v9FIFPkS036088
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO)
 for <ports@freebsd.org>; Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
 (envelope-from yuri@rawbw.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: shell1.rawbw.com: Host
 c-24-6-186-56.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.6.186.56] claimed to be yv.noip.me
From: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>
Subject: Why ports are allowed to be linked with base OpenSSL?
To: "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <de742cb7-34e5-97d2-b12b-eb764682327e@rawbw.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:15:24 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:15:32 -0000

Uses/ssl.mk allows SSL_DEFAULT=base. I know this has been discussed here 
before, but why is this even allowed? If some ports are built with 
SSL_DEFAULT=base, and some with SSL_DEFAULT=openssl, this will obviously 
cause conflicts when two incompatible openssl libraries will be mapped 
into the same process.


Isn't it better to only allow port OpenSSL for ports, and disallow base 
OpenSSL in ports, so that there will be homogeneity of openssl?


Yuri