Hello Jan,
I'm waiting on 9b214a66ea8788a6da299139decf506a4b4f5ff1 commit to be MFHed
so I can proceed with wxgtk32.
$ git cherry-pick -x 03eac77c103b637b316d6a73df7cae01986402cf (bump
consumers commit)
$ git checkout @ .
$ xargs -n1 portedit bump-revision -i
#
Jan Beich escreveu no dia do
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 11:07:21PM -0800, Xin Li wrote:
>
> I recently noticed that security/boringssl is treated in a similar way of
> OpenSSL and LibreSSL. Although boringssl is derived from OpenSSL, it's
> usually meant to be statically linked into the resulting binary, because
> there is
On 2023-11-27 17:48, Sergey A. Osokin wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 11:07:21PM -0800, Xin Li wrote:
I recently noticed that security/boringssl is treated in a similar way of
OpenSSL and LibreSSL. Although boringssl is derived from OpenSSL, it's
usually meant to be statically linked into
Dear port maintainers,
The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more
unmaintained ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity
to check each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate,
submit/commit an update. Please consider also adopting this po
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 11:07:21PM -0800, Xin Li wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently noticed that security/boringssl is treated in a similar way
> of OpenSSL and LibreSSL.
Technically, `security/boringssl' cannot be treated similarly, i.e. it
cannot be made one of possible SSL providers (via USES=ssl) be
