Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:31:29 -0700 From: Mel Pilgrim <list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why ports are allowed to be linked with base OpenSSL? Message-ID: <454e2110-9a36-c9f3-e102-ff538abbd616@bluerosetech.com> In-Reply-To: <20171015184133.qw342awio6svrw7v@ivaldir.net> References: <de742cb7-34e5-97d2-b12b-eb764682327e@rawbw.com> <20171015184133.qw342awio6svrw7v@ivaldir.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/15/2017 11:41, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 06:15:24PM +0000, Yuri wrote: >> Uses/ssl.mk allows SSL_DEFAULT=base. I know this has been discussed here >> before, but why is this even allowed? If some ports are built with >> SSL_DEFAULT=base, and some with SSL_DEFAULT=openssl, this will obviously >> cause conflicts when two incompatible openssl libraries will be mapped into >> the same process. >> >> >> Isn't it better to only allow port OpenSSL for ports, and disallow base >> OpenSSL in ports, so that there will be homogeneity of openssl? >> > > First the default SSL is supposed to be for the entire ports tree, not only for > a bunch of ports. > > Second, yes that is the plan but it takes time and it is not that easy to make > it happen :) What are the current roadblocks to setting SSL_DEFAULT=openssl in ssl.mk? Is there a list of ports that don't compile with the ports openssl?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?454e2110-9a36-c9f3-e102-ff538abbd616>