Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:04:49 -0500 From: "Scot Hetzel" <swhetzel@gmail.com> To: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org>, roam@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: ftp/curl Message-ID: <790a9fff0607201404n4b079427m666ec9c616bf77e6@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <cb5206420607201333t5a4bbc74p964b16796d84a0e1@mail.gmail.com> References: <cb5206420607201333t5a4bbc74p964b16796d84a0e1@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/20/06, Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@gmail.com> wrote: > I wonder if it's possible to resolve the situation when > (defined(WITH_GNUTLS) && !defined(WITHOUT_SSL)) in a > friendlier way than a simple IGNORE. I have WITH_GNUTLS > in my make.conf and I don't have WITHOUT_SSL there. It > would be great if you could make the port choose on its own, > either way would be perfect. > I had a look at the ports Makefile, and there is only one thing that is holding the port back, from doing what you want. The port defines: .if !defined(WITHOUT_SSL) USE_OPENSSL= yes .endif before it includes bsd.port.pre.mk. If this could be included after the bsd.port.pre.mk, then the port could have been made to work as you wanted. Since USE_OPENSSL is defined in bsd.port.pre.mk, it needs to be defined before this *.mk file. If it could be moved into bsd.port.post.mk, then the ports Makefile could be changed as follows; -.if !defined(WITHOUT_SSL) -USE_OPENSSL= yes -.endif .include <bsd.port.pre.mk> -.if defined(WITH_GNUTLS) && !defined(WITHOUT_SSL) -IGNORE= may only use GNU TLS if WITHOUT_SSL is defined +.if defined(WITH_GNUTLS) +WITHOUT_SSL= yes +.else +USE_OPENSSL= yes .endif Scot -- DISCLAIMER: No electrons were mamed while sending this message. Only slightly bruised.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?790a9fff0607201404n4b079427m666ec9c616bf77e6>