Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:47:27 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> To: Jim Ohlstein <jim@ohlste.in> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Committer needed for PR 208029 Message-ID: <20160406144727.GP35640@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <570517F1.5020305@ohlste.in> References: <498CA3F8-15EF-45BD-880C-241F83CBE3DD@waschbuesch.de> <20160405185159.GK35640@home.opsec.eu> <20160405200835.GM35640@home.opsec.eu> <57042958.5010701@sorbs.net> <C96569DA-ADC5-4BE0-819A-7375C3F50D8E@waschbuesch.de> <20160406044431.GO35640@home.opsec.eu> <570517F1.5020305@ohlste.in>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > This is much ado about nothing. The "WITH_OPENSSL_PORT" option is there > for just this purpose and is used in many ports. In 9.x this is sometimes a problem, if port X builds in variant 1 and port Y depends/links on X, but builds in variant 2. So it's a temporary solution for 9.x and will be solved when 9.x is EOL'ed. I'm not sure how this is solved in 10.x/11.x, probably the base SSL is much more up2date. > Forcing users who want to use this port to use OpenSSL from ports for > ALL ports is overkill. > Think about official packages. Are ALL packages built against OpenSSL > from ports, or only those that need them? It's the latter, of course. > Are they incompatible in production? No. There are grey areas, and I guess it will be like that for 9.x. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160406144727.GP35640>