From owner-freebsd-ports  Mon Mar 19  7:11: 8 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from quack.kfu.com (quack.kfu.com [205.178.90.194])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 245DF37B71B; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 07:11:06 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from nsayer@medusa.kfu.com)
Received: from medusa.kfu.com (medusa.kfu.com [205.178.90.222])
	by quack.kfu.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2JFB5h61220;
	Mon, 19 Mar 2001 07:11:05 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from nsayer@medusa.kfu.com)
Received: (from nsayer@localhost)
	by medusa.kfu.com (8.11.1/8.11.0) id f2JFB4u83298;
	Mon, 19 Mar 2001 07:11:04 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from nsayer)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 07:11:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Nick Sayer <nsayer@quack.kfu.com>
Message-Id: <200103191511.f2JFB4u83298@medusa.kfu.com>
To: ache@freebsd.org, kbyanc@posi.net, petef@databits.net,
	ports@freebsd.org
Subject: cclient SSL support
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

I would like to call attention to PR ports/25920, which adds SSL support
to the cclient port. If the patch in question is applied to the cclient
port, then all of the dependent ports will need to have

-L${OPENSSLLIB} -lcrypto -lssl

added to their link flags and

USE_OPENSSL=	true

added to their Makefiles. This will be required regardless of whether or not
the port in question actually takes advantage of ssl. Note that all of these
ports had at some point -lpam added to them for similar reasons.

I have tested out pine built with these patches and it works fine. In fact,
it now validates the SSL cert -- something that pine+ssl never did.

After these steps are taken, the (broken) pine+ssl port can be removed.

The patches are very, very simple. I can't think of any excuse not to do this.

Thanks.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message