Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:27:11 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: office@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 206234] [PATCH] editors/openoffice-4: use openssl instead of nss Message-ID: <bug-206234-25061-o3La2o3ECl@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-206234-25061@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-206234-25061@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D206234 --- Comment #1 from Arrigo Marchiori <ardovm@yahoo.it> --- Created attachment 165563 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D165563&action= =3Dedit Upstream patch (vanilla, to be copied into the files/ directory) This file is the ``vanilla'' patch proposed by upstream: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=3D84969&action=3Ddiff It works if copied into the files/ directory of the editors/openoffice-4 po= rt. I am not sure if it is a good idea to split it into many files, each one patching a single source file, as requested in Porter's Handbook chapter 4.= 4. In fact, it seems that the files/ directory already contains ``bulk'' patch= es that affect many files. I am also not sure if it is advisable to apply this fix selectively, i.e. l= eave to the user the choice between OpenSSL and libnss. Please advise if you thi= nk so, and kindly give me some pointers to the documentation on such process (I could not find any information on _selective_ patching in the Porter's Handbook). --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-206234-25061-o3La2o3ECl>