This is a question about Portfile development, so it belongs on the
macports-dev mailing list. I'm Cc'ing that list now. If you're not subscribed
to that list yet, please subscribe. If you reply, please remove macports-users
from the recipient list.
On Nov 13, 2015, at 7:14 PM, Ludwig wrote:
>
I'm writing a port for Pash, a Power Shell clone for Mono, and am stuck as
described here: https://trac.macports.org/ticket/49656#comment:4
> Pash builds successfully via Mono’s xbuild tool, but it doesn’t have a “make
> install” equivalent, it leaves the executable in the project hierarchy at
> S
On 2015-11-13, at 1:33 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> Telling it to "stop using them" is not unlike telling Apple they should stop
> shipping anything but the latest version of a whole range of things shipped
> with the OS (python comes to mind). There's a responsibility to ensure that
> users w
> On Nov 13, 2015, at 12:53, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> On Friday November 13 2015 11:30:59 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
>
>> I don't understand what you mean here. These methods *force* the use of
>> SSLv2 even if secure alternatives are available:
>>
>> qt.network.ssl: QSslSocket: can
On Friday November 13 2015 11:30:59 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
> I don't understand what you mean here. These methods *force* the use of
> SSLv2 even if secure alternatives are available:
>
> qt.network.ssl: QSslSocket: cannot resolve SSLv2_client_method
> qt.network.ssl: QSslSocket: cann
> On Nov 13, 2015, at 10:09, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> On Friday November 13 2015 09:20:11 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
>> They *force* the use of the insecure SSLv2 transport (which was broken years
>> ago and replace with SSLv3, which itself was broken).
>
> Where, how?
I don't unders
On Friday November 13 2015 09:20:11 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
> They *force* the use of the insecure SSLv2 transport (which was broken years
> ago and replace with SSLv3, which itself was broken).
Where, how?
> Qt probably doesn't use SSLv2 itself or else that warning would have had a
>
> On Nov 13, 2015, at 01:33, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> On Thursday November 12 2015 15:56:58 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
>
> If LibreSSL should become the default, the best compromise in this particular
> case might yet be to provide a variant that allows Qt to build with the
> shipped
On Friday November 13 2015 12:52:07 Dominik Reichardt wrote:
> Yes! You must have missed Ryan's post in this thread when he remarked just
> that (same license, same restrictions), one or two days ago.
Guess so.
This only strengthens my conviction that if anything and for the time being,
it's t
> Am 13.11.2015 um 12:21 schrieb René J.V. Bertin :
>
> You're right that it has the same license. I was under the impression that it
> didn't, but should have checked.
>
> If it has the same license, there shouldn't be a difference in binary package
> restrictions, right?
Yes! You must have
You're right that it has the same license. I was under the impression that it
didn't, but should have checked.
If it has the same license, there shouldn't be a difference in binary package
restrictions, right?
R.
___
macports-users mailing list
macpor
> On 13.11.2015, at 11:16, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> On Friday November 13 2015 10:45:32 Dominik Reichardt wrote:
>
>> from www.libressl.org:
>>
>> "LibreSSL is a version of the TLS/crypto stack forked from OpenSSL in 2014,
>> with goals of modernizing the codebase, improving security, and
On Friday November 13 2015 10:45:32 Dominik Reichardt wrote:
> from www.libressl.org:
>
> "LibreSSL is a version of the TLS/crypto stack forked from OpenSSL in 2014,
> with goals of modernizing the codebase, improving security, and applying best
> practice development processes.”
>
> so, no re
> On 13.11.2015, at 10:33, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> I don't really want into this kind of discussion, but
>
>> Libressl doesn't "emulate" OpenSSL. It is a derivative of OpenSSL with a
>> focus on better architecture and security.
>
> AFAIK it's a rewrite (has to be, to avoid licensing/c
On Thursday November 12 2015 15:56:58 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
If LibreSSL should become the default, the best compromise in this particular
case might yet be to provide a variant that allows Qt to build with the shipped
OpenSSL version rather than against the "system" (MacPorts) version
15 matches
Mail list logo
