On 04/01/15 23:21, Yuri wrote: > On 04/01/2015 14:17, Jung-uk Kim wrote: >> I know bsd.openssl.mk has been broken for very long time. For example, >> >> http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50108FEF.3030405 >> >> However, I am not sure whether entirely removing it is the best way >> going forward. > > I mean, removing of the dependency on base. Ports should use only > openssl port. > > If you think this isn't a good idea, and ports should still occasionally > use base openssl, would you care to explain why you think so?
I'm not in the position of taking such decisions, but based on some experience and quick tests I have discovered that changing the default would cause ports now working to break. I generally agree with your idea that ports should use ports ssl, but making this switch is more difficult than just changing a variable. Some real testing is needed, and just exp-runs would not suffice, most software would show misbehavior only at runtime. Some examples of things that could (and will) go wrong: - ports silently linking to base ssl due to weirdness in their build scripts - ports linking to other libraries in base which are linked to base ssl, causing conflicts - ports interacting with base parts, which are using base ssl. All this without accounting for eventual ports who do need older ssl to work, causing further mixing. I have experienced or seen reports about all tree examples. Also, you could have a look at this bug: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198788 -- Guido Falsi <m...@madpilot.net> _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
