From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Wed Jan 1 21:23:30 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD281E09B2 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 21:23:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from franco@lastsummer.de) Received: from host64.shmhost.net (host64.shmhost.net [213.239.241.64]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47p40L0Hfzz4Ngr for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 21:23:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from franco@lastsummer.de) Received: from francos-mbp.fritz.box (ip9234d229.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de [146.52.210.41]) by host64.shmhost.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47p40J4PwdzKkf3; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 22:23:28 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\)) Subject: Re: Portmaster failing From: Franco Fichtner In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 22:23:28 +0100 Cc: "@lbutlr" , FreeBSD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <8DDB987C-5276-4F35-BBD1-84043ED26E03@kreme.com> <288FEB87-3D88-4696-BF83-6918DAE656E5@kreme.com> To: Adam Weinberger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.4 at host64.shmhost.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47p40L0Hfzz4Ngr X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of franco@lastsummer.de has no SPF policy when checking 213.239.241.64) smtp.mailfrom=franco@lastsummer.de X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.49 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[41.210.52.146.khpj7ygk5idzvmvt5x4ziurxhy.zen.dq.spamhaus.net : 127.0.0.11]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; IP_SCORE(-0.16)[ip: (0.75), ipnet: 213.239.192.0/18(-0.01), asn: 24940(-1.54), country: DE(-0.02)]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[lastsummer.de]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.94)[-0.940,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[64.241.239.213.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.79)[-0.791,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:213.239.192.0/18, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2020 21:23:30 -0000 Hi Adam, > On 1. Jan 2020, at 10:18 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:51 PM @lbutlr wrote: >>=20 >> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner = wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner = wrote: >>>>> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has = become security/openssl. >>>>=20 >>>> Ugh. >>>>=20 >>>>> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private = trees, don't we. ;) >>>>=20 >>>> This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 = are any indication. >>>=20 >>> With PHP 5.6 axed prematurely a while back I am interested to see = OpenSSL 1.0.2 >>> phased out now with a number of ports still not supporting 1.1.1 and = seeing them >>> marked as broken sooner or later. >>=20 >> Well, at this point I cannot install openssl111 without deinstalling = openssl, which I cannot deinstall since it is gone from ports. >>=20 >> Looks like I have to remove openssl, which =E2=80=A6 I mean, = seriously, this seems pretty hostile. >>=20 >> Name : openssl >> Version : 1.0.2u,1 >> Installed on : Sun Dec 22 08:13:27 2019 MST >>=20 >> There was nothing at all on the 22nd about =E2=80=9CWARNING THIS WILL = BREAK EVERYTHING IN A WEEK=E2=80=9D which to mean seems like it should = have been made super obvious. >=20 > This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. Let me stop you right here and say: ports Framework itself is suffering from this wishful attitude and this has nothing to do with readily available poudriere "replacements" which are not as good as poudriere for sure. If the ports framework isn't seen as a stand alone infrastructure worth its own integrity the discussion is already dead and the quality will keep to decline for every casual FreeBSD user who doesn't really care for this or that tool, but wants to install software from the ports tree manually. Cheers, Franco=