Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 17:32:38 -0400 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Cc: Dirk Meyer <dinoex@freebsd.org>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Pourdriere produces faulty build results due to bsd.openssl.mk bug Message-ID: <551C63F6.2050700@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <551C616C.8080503@rawbw.com> References: <551C5C4C.5090707@rawbw.com> <551C6051.4060803@FreeBSD.org> <551C616C.8080503@rawbw.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 04/01/2015 17:21, Yuri wrote: > On 04/01/2015 14:17, Jung-uk Kim wrote: >> I know bsd.openssl.mk has been broken for very long time. For >> example, >> >> http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50108FEF.3030405 >> >> However, I am not sure whether entirely removing it is the best >> way going forward. > > I mean, removing of the dependency on base. Ports should use only > openssl port. > > If you think this isn't a good idea, and ports should still > occasionally use base openssl, would you care to explain why you > think so? I don't like to see adding "-Wl,-rpath,${LOCALBASE}/lib" to LDFLAGS for all ports depending on libcrypto, etc. If it is moved to separate directories first, then it makes some sense, though. Jung-uk Kim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVHGPwAAoJEHyflib82/FGX8YIAIefRcO47zRHmojZ4E0gS15J Y4bWyCFFVpIjuEDW4kQ6mFK83lJz9DD+KWfn/FFJrxAvmFpKnw4jJ8UtqsH1KuRp o9fXPH6TGVZqvM33KCWSdDBKw/7Pu29gQjxnHmN5R8aa96oTYA7yR09BWAKcQs37 ZOrwJBcKKt03KZtvYYkc3GeK5oKKIuC1DNporYzoWFCKzrtzKDIUBJgPIePrWF6a QGvZe85D9nwk5WCoVAw26FHV4sGpd7DMFxgkm5EfiYVvte9El3rDrIRkLLxkYqzV C3M7pbuQ8Uf9gGUcuBnrfpWU42jVGNjvpq2w7sBQAJibeOh1TlwaDLNtS7H5ctU= =+7Bt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?551C63F6.2050700>