From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 20 21:04:51 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org 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 D20BE16A4E2 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:04:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from swhetzel@gmail.com) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.171]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949D243D46 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:04:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from swhetzel@gmail.com) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so1040175uge for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:04:49 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=A7YVZCO7Dmh6lr0H9YCfCvRVaLj1MSfyflBUeo4LPim2CKCEiiq7MQhSKVTb6zGj9kwnPQBx/rukfMAVpF89+QJFoqXTwM852LWSpkf8sHonyge5LlAuu/28Ss8VRnULVGyv6TKNlpq/W0Dky3tAB5dZVGIHiP3JLQ/FwisfdPM= Received: by 10.78.164.13 with SMTP id m13mr930664hue; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.83.17 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <790a9fff0607201404n4b079427m666ec9c616bf77e6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:04:49 -0500 From: "Scot Hetzel" To: "Andrew Pantyukhin" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: Cc: FreeBSD Ports , roam@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: ftp/curl X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:04:51 -0000 On 7/20/06, Andrew Pantyukhin 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 -.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.