Theo de Raadt writes:
> Dave Voutila <d...@sisu.io> wrote: > >> Theo de Raadt writes: >> >> >> I think the easiest path here is to incorporate the new upstream into a >> >> port, unless someone is familiar with zlib and can cherrypick out the >> >> commit(s) that resolve the issue. (I didn't find zlib in ports already.) >> > >> > That is completely impossible. It must be in base. There are 3 copies >> > in base -- userland, kernel, and bootblocks. They must be kept in sync. >> >> Not saying to replace what's in base, but have a different version in >> ports available for ports. I was thinking along the lines of egcc or >> eopenssl in that the port co-exists with base and ports that need them >> need tweaking to use them. > > You've got to be kidding. In what world does it help to require -I and > -l lines all over the place, or else everything breaks. I'm in 100% agreement it sucks and it's something I believe is already done for ports that require OpenSSL. /shrug. My thinking was instead of having to test all of base across all archs with any potential fix, we could isolate the change to maybe the R port if other R packages or whatever have run into this. But I'm not volunteering to do either so I'll stop beating this horse now before it never walks again. -dv
