* Felix Palmen [20211005 08:38]:
> If that would be consensus, I think it would be better to remove the
> option altogether. What's the point of having a totally unsupported and
> experimental option in ports anyways?
To get that straight, I think a decision is needed here.
Either libressl in po
* Mathieu Arnold [20211004 20:20]:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 04:16:54PM +0200, Felix Palmen wrote:
> > Is LibreSSL in FreeBSD ports
> >
> > * supported, so ports should build with it if at all possible?
> > * supported on a "best effort" base, so setting a port BROKEN is
> > acceptable if maint
> On 4. Oct 2021, at 20:21, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 04:16:54PM +0200, Felix Palmen wrote:
>> Is LibreSSL in FreeBSD ports
>>
>> * supported, so ports should build with it if at all possible?
>> * supported on a "best effort" base, so setting a port BROKEN is
>> acc
On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 04:16:54PM +0200, Felix Palmen wrote:
> Is LibreSSL in FreeBSD ports
>
> * supported, so ports should build with it if at all possible?
> * supported on a "best effort" base, so setting a port BROKEN is
> acceptable if maintaining (working) patches would be too much hassl
