On Friday December 30 2016 17:25:20 Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> I would agree that it would be helpful to have some "more advanced"
> version of dependency specification available.
The depspec syntax doesn't necessarily have to be more complicated. Ports that
require more advanced functionality could
On 30 December 2016 at 11:32, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm coming back to this discussion because of something that came up
> elsewhere.
>
> I think we had a consensus a while back that the implementation of the
> support for using libressl at user discretion left a bit to desire.
I agr
Hi,
I'm coming back to this discussion because of something that came up elsewhere.
I think we had a consensus a while back that the implementation of the support
for using libressl at user discretion left a bit to desire.
There could be a protection against installing binary packages built agai
On Tuesday November 22 2016 15:14:15 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> The same does not apply to -devel ports. -devel ports are just newer (usually
> development) versions of stable ports.
I beg to differ, it *can* apply to -devel ports that provide a newer version of
the release port. I didn't invent the
> On Nov 22, 2016, at 4:54 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
>> On 21 November 2016 at 14:23, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>>
>> Is there anything currently in MacPorts that avoids issues that will
>> probably arise when you install libressl and then pull in a prebuilt
>> binary that will supposedly be bui
> On Nov 21, 2016, at 7:23 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been thinking about the implications of alternative/drop-in replacement
> ports and ABI differences.
>
> IIUC, libressl and openssl are API-compatible alternatives that do not build
> to ABI-compatible libraries. Yet I h
On Tuesday November 22 2016 10:54:22 Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>According to my understanding, ports that depend on either of multiple
>ABI-incompatible libraries should use variants to pick one or the
>other, path-style is just the wrong workaround/shortcut (I don't know
>if openssl/libressl are ABI
On 21 November 2016 at 14:23, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been thinking about the implications of alternative/drop-in replacement
> ports and ABI differences.
>
> IIUC, libressl and openssl are API-compatible alternatives that do not build
> to ABI-compatible libraries. Yet I have noti
On Monday November 21 2016 14:23:40 René J.V. Bertin wrote:
PS
>Is there anything currently in MacPorts that avoids issues that will probably
>arise when you install libressl and then pull in a prebuilt binary that will
>supposedly be built against openssl?
And with that I meant anything ready
Hi,
I've been thinking about the implications of alternative/drop-in replacement
ports and ABI differences.
IIUC, libressl and openssl are API-compatible alternatives that do not build to
ABI-compatible libraries. Yet I have noticed that ports use a path:-style
dependency declaration which all
10 matches
Mail list logo
