Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:06:13 -0700
From:      "@lbutlr" <kremels@kreme.com>
To:        FreeBSD <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: OpenSSL multiple names?
Message-ID:  <D01B694B-9ABA-4347-B8CE-973D307A6C45@kreme.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200207005501.j5avkiietunh5ipz@icepick.vmeta.jp>
References:  <0AF06B02-4203-4CF1-9F73-6B6D95283F3E@kreme.com> <20200207005501.j5avkiietunh5ipz@icepick.vmeta.jp>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06 Feb 2020, at 17:55, Koichiro Iwao <meta@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> I think UPDATING 20200101 should help you.

Nope, that doesn=E2=80=99t help me. I updated openssl in January, and as =
I said it has been recompiled several times (well, at least six) since =
then as I have updated ports. This behavior of confusing the two forms =
=E2=80=9Copenssl-1.1.1d,1=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Copenssl111-1.1.1f=E2=80=9D=
 is new.

> On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 06:41:19PM -0700, @lbutlr wrote:
>> When trying to port upgrade mariadb it reinstalled openssl (just =
about everything for the last month has reinstalled openssl)
>>=20
>> I get this after a successful build
>>=20
>> =3D=3D=3D>   Registering installation for openssl-1.1.1d,1
>> Installing openssl-1.1.1d,1...
>> pkg-static: openssl-1.1.1d,1 conflicts with openssl111-1.1.1d
>>=20
>> There is /usr/ports/security/openssl
>>=20
>> So why are there two different formats on the port name and how do I =
fix this.


--=20
It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all
	and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought...should be =
literally
	unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D01B694B-9ABA-4347-B8CE-973D307A6C45>