Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 22:26:32 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>, Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [SOLUTION] Re: svn commit: r358411 - head/contrib/sendmail/src Message-ID: <ff3762ab-4560-38c2-0d6f-a250ccc66d6c@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <ygea74w9o5l.wl-ume@FreeBSD.org> References: <fdbf3930-c17e-ba4a-4819-e201590b6c9d@FreeBSD.org> <34373b64-876b-c97c-e805-ffaf3a69dd8b@grosbein.net> <8e60a869-fe1e-9314-ffdc-76ed3e2dc081@FreeBSD.org> <20200303.075047.1159550404273266246.hrs@FreeBSD.org> <8c1adcb3-1537-e6ae-e446-f05aee1e3483@grosbein.net> <e764ae2a-23da-2f31-cc6b-1d15639646a1@FreeBSD.org> <9ac02710-8029-18fc-9b2a-383c1a229cdd@grosbein.net> <d6636a65-8793-0676-29a2-14630f2daaaa@FreeBSD.org> <f7559512-1d06-ba7c-7cd7-bd6514e3ae49@grosbein.net> <489d09c9-f0b4-f7b1-6255-51bdeb19b740@FreeBSD.org> <4d974e29-f930-257c-5e0b-7528e745cea4@grosbein.net> <ygea74w9o5l.wl-ume@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
04.03.2020 21:43, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: > Hi, > >>>>>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 21:07:10 +0700 >>>>>> Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> said: > > eugen> Dear maintainer, please consider applying r515574 back. > > No, I never do r515574 back. The other ports depending upon > cyrus-sasl2 must be linked same version of openssl. So, there is an > option "DEFAULT_VERSIONS= ssl=base". Your hack breaks this premise and > confuse people. r515574 does not change default build for the port. It is "no-op" by default. It won't do any harm. "ssl=base" is not solution as I've showed before because FreeBSD ports tree cannot cope with some ports built with ports version of openssl and some with base version of openssl and this is exactly what needs to be done here. Why do you state "it confuses people"? When did we move from "tools, not policy" principle away? Such policy prevents us from supporting source upgrade for such stable/11 systems, so such policy should be discarded. Ports options are designed to cope with different setups and I cannot understand why you insist not using the option. I'm going to create duplicate of the port linking with base libcrypto to support upgrade if current port won't get the option. The upgrade path must be unbroken.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ff3762ab-4560-38c2-0d6f-a250ccc66d6c>