Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:55:59 +0100 From: Bernard Spil <brnrd@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Intent to update security/openssl-devel to 1.1.1 Message-ID: <2ebfcb4f8edf8fa0c5c116ed56a9df43@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <79f494bc5960dfceb97af95857e2b2dd@FreeBSD.org> References: <79f494bc5960dfceb97af95857e2b2dd@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi All, I've been maintaining a port for OpenSSL 1.1.1 for myself for a while, the port is at version 1.1.1.p3 as of today (see https://github.com/Sp1l/ports/tree/master/security/openssl-master). It works well with ${USESDIR}/apache.mk and DEFAULT_VERSIONS= ssl=openssl-devel. A while ago I did 2 exp-runs of the complete ports tree, one with 1.1.0g and the other with 1.1.1.p2. Both on the same revision of 2018-03-18. The output was compared to identify ports that fail with 1.1.1.p2 that weren't already failing with 1.1.0 too. The result is a mere 44 ports, of which I currently believe most can be attributed to qt4-/qt5-network failure. Failures and links to poudriere logs here: https://wiki.freebsd.org/OpenSSL/1.1.1 (for reference, 1.1.0 activity documented here: https://wiki.freebsd.org/OpenSSL/1.1.0) As the delta in fall-out between 1.1.0 and 1.1.1 is so limited I intend, as maintainer of the security/openssl and security/openssl-devel ports, to update the security/openssl-devel port to 1.1.1 when that becomes the release. I'm open to suggestions on keeping both version 1.1.0 and 1.1.1 in the tree, but with current naming scheme that would be neigh impossible. The openssl-devel port was created in discussion with portmgr (alternative would have been security/openssl110), I'm open to changes in the naming too. Any feedback appreciated. Feedback that you actually use the -devel port would be great, I have no clue if anyone uses it... Cheers, Bernard.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2ebfcb4f8edf8fa0c5c116ed56a9df43>