Jim Ohlstein wrote:
Hello,
On 4/6/16 12:39 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
+--On 6 avril 2016 12:00:47 -0400 Jim Ohlstein wrote:
| Hello,
|
|> On Apr 6, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
|>
|> +--On 6 avril 2016 10:06:41 -0400 Jim Ohlstein wrote:
|> | Hello,
|> |
|> | On 4/6/16 12:44 AM, Ku
Kurt Jaeger 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
Hello,
On 4/6/16 12:39 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
+--On 6 avril 2016 12:00:47 -0400 Jim Ohlstein wrote:
| Hello,
|
|> On Apr 6, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
|>
|> +--On 6 avril 2016 10:06:41 -0400 Jim Ohlstein wrote:
|> | Hello,
|> |
|> | On 4/6/16 12:44 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
|> |
+--On 6 avril 2016 12:00:47 -0400 Jim Ohlstein wrote:
| Hello,
|
|> On Apr 6, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
|>
|> +--On 6 avril 2016 10:06:41 -0400 Jim Ohlstein wrote:
|> | Hello,
|> |
|> | On 4/6/16 12:44 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
|> |> Hi!
|> |>
|> |>> Actually, I just noticed (whe
## Kurt Jaeger (li...@opsec.eu):
> 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.
We have also seen that problem on 10.x:
https://lists.freebs
Hello,
> On Apr 6, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>
> +--On 6 avril 2016 10:06:41 -0400 Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> | Hello,
> |
> | On 4/6/16 12:44 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> |> Hi!
> |>
> |>> Actually, I just noticed (when compiling the port), that the Makefile
> |>> now says:
> |>>
> |>
+--On 6 avril 2016 10:06:41 -0400 Jim Ohlstein wrote:
| Hello,
|
| On 4/6/16 12:44 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
|> Hi!
|>
|>> Actually, I just noticed (when compiling the port), that the Makefile
|>> now says:
|>>
|>> WITH_OPENSSL_PORT=yes
|>
|> Yes, sorry, my fault. Fixed, and as suggested by mat:
On 2016/04/06 16:05, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> On Apr 6, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Kurt Jaeger 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
Hello,
> On Apr 6, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Kurt Jaeger 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
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
Hello,
On 4/6/16 12:44 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
Actually, I just noticed (when compiling the port), that the Makefile now says:
WITH_OPENSSL_PORT=yes
Yes, sorry, my fault. Fixed, and as suggested by mat: It is
now as IGNORE with a message explaining how to do it for 9.x.
This is much a
+--On 6 avril 2016 07:33:50 +0200 Michelle Sullivan
wrote:
| Kurt Jaeger wrote:
|> Hi!
|>
|>> Actually, I just noticed (when compiling the port), that the Makefile
|>> now says:
|>>
|>> WITH_OPENSSL_PORT=yes
|> Yes, sorry, my fault. Fixed, and as suggested by mat: It is
|> now as IGNORE with a
Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
Actually, I just noticed (when compiling the port), that the Makefile now says:
WITH_OPENSSL_PORT=yes
Yes, sorry, my fault. Fixed, and as suggested by mat: It is
now as IGNORE with a message explaining how to do it for 9.x.
Not sure about the IGNORE vs BROKEN but looks
Hi!
> Actually, I just noticed (when compiling the port), that the Makefile now
> says:
>
> WITH_OPENSSL_PORT=yes
Yes, sorry, my fault. Fixed, and as suggested by mat: It is
now as IGNORE with a message explaining how to do it for 9.x.
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372
Martin Waschbüsch wrote:
Umm probably a really bad idea... consider this or something more
creative/descriptive:
.if ${OPSYS} == FreeBSD && ${OSVERSION} < 100 && ${WITH_OPENSSL_PORT} !=
"yes"
BROKEN= You must set WITH_OPENSSL_PORT=yes in /etc/make.conf on Pre 10.x
.endif
... the
> Umm probably a really bad idea... consider this or something more
> creative/descriptive:
>
> .if ${OPSYS} == FreeBSD && ${OSVERSION} < 100 && ${WITH_OPENSSL_PORT} !=
> "yes"
> BROKEN= You must set WITH_OPENSSL_PORT=yes in /etc/make.conf on
> Pre 10.x
> .endif
>
>
> ...
Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
I'm testbuilding those ports right now and find that
they fail on 9.3amd64 with:
With this in the -server Makefile, all is fine.
.if ${OPSYS} == FreeBSD && ${OSVERSION} < 100
WITH_OPENSSL_PORT=yes
.endif
Umm probably a really bad idea... consider this or something
Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
Could someone please have a look at this one.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208029
All patches got approval from the maintainer.
For all I can see this should be ready to be committed.
If I overlooked anything or more information is needed,
please le
> Am 05.04.2016 um 22:15 schrieb Kurt Jaeger :
>
> Hi!
>
>> Could someone please have a look at this one.
>> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208029
>>
>> All patches got approval from the maintainer.
>> For all I can see this should be ready to be committed.
>
> Done.
Thanks
Hi!
> Could someone please have a look at this one.
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208029
>
> All patches got approval from the maintainer.
> For all I can see this should be ready to be committed.
Done.
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4
Hi!
> I'm testbuilding those ports right now and find that
> they fail on 9.3amd64 with:
With this in the -server Makefile, all is fine.
.if ${OPSYS} == FreeBSD && ${OSVERSION} < 100
WITH_OPENSSL_PORT=yes
.endif
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to
Hi!
> I'm testbuilding those ports right now and find that
> they fail on 9.3amd64 with:
>
> checking for OpenSSL support... yes
> configure: error: OpenSSL library version requirement not met (>= 1.0.1)
>
> So it seems that OpenSSL and 9.3amd64 do not build ? Should the
> default for 9.3 probab
Hi!
> Could someone please have a look at this one.
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208029
>
> All patches got approval from the maintainer.
> For all I can see this should be ready to be committed.
>
> If I overlooked anything or more information is needed,
> please let me k
Hi all,
Could someone please have a look at this one.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208029
All patches got approval from the maintainer.
For all I can see this should be ready to be committed.
If I overlooked anything or more information is needed,
please let me know and I'll
24 matches
Mail list logo
