Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:42:26 -0600 From: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> To: Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mike Durian <durian@shadetreesoftware.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: www/libwww and SSL Message-ID: <54DC7293385544FE17F45902@paul-schmehls-powerbook59.local> In-Reply-To: <20061229212658.GA87752@icarus.home.lan> References: <200612291040.29615.durian@shadetreesoftware.com> <20061229190954.GA84882@icarus.home.lan> <1A211FD8C37E9E9379B4526E@paul-schmehls-powerbook59.local> <20061229212658.GA87752@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==========0397672C05DF6ECDAC7F========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --On December 29, 2006 1:26:58 PM -0800 Jeremy Chadwick=20 <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 01:58:41PM -0600, Paul Schmehl wrote: >> >> Is a patch really necessary? The port was created in 1996. There's >> been no further development of the software since 12 Jun, 2002. This >> is apparently the first time someone has even noticed the lack of an >> option to include a make arg for ssl. It seems that a one-off request >> is hardly reason to update the port. >> >> If someone wants to port sipX, then libwww would have to be built with >> ssl, but I doubt that should be the default anyway. If it should, it >> would certainly take some testing to see what effect it had all the >> other ports for which it is a dependency (which is quite a few, I >> believe.) > > Am I reading this correctly? You *don't* want www/libwww updated > to support WITH_SSL because it's a "one-off request" involving an > upstream port dependancy? (re: sipX) > What I want isn't really relevant. I'm simply suggesting that updating=20 the port to include an OPTION for with_ssl seems unnecessary *unless*=20 someone is going to port sipX. Have you looked at sipX? Porting it would = not be simple, and I wonder how much demand there would be. In any case,=20 *unless* sipX gets ported, it doesn't make sense to me to update=20 www/libwww simply to enable an option no one has asked for until now. > I just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. Perhaps my clarification will confirm your suspicions. Perhaps not. Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ --==========0397672C05DF6ECDAC7F==========--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54DC7293385544FE17F45902>