Hello, > On Apr 6, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Kurt Jaeger <li...@opsec.eu> wrote: > > 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.
Not only 9.x. 10.x has OpenSSL 1.0.1. Some ports require 1.0.2 which is in ports. Openssl 1.1.0 is soon to be released but almost certainly won't be in 11. It's likely to always be an issue. It's up to each individual maintainer to make certain his or her ports behave correctly if binaries link to one another. For a port like this the proper solution is to use the least intrusive option. -- Jim _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
