Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:29:59 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> To: Matthew Emmerton <matt@gsicomp.on.ca> Cc: jim@geekhouse.net, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, dirk@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: A Newer OpenSSL Port? Message-ID: <20010117222959.M1761@puck.firepipe.net> In-Reply-To: <001701c080ed$64053040$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca>; from matt@gsicomp.on.ca on Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 08:24:22PM -0500 References: <007701c080c7$34b9e860$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> <20010117160530.A71104@envy.geekhouse.net> <001701c080ed$64053040$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--kkcDP0v44wDpNmbp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 08:24:22PM -0500, Matthew Emmerton wrote: > Unfortunately this isn't an option at the present time. The machine has a > fair bit of userland hacks and customisations which won't survive an > upgrade. (This is the same reason why I have a few 3.x boxes which haven= 't > migrated to 4.x yet. However, the 3.x machines can use openssl-0.9.5 whi= ch > is in the ports. The 4.x machines can't.) >=20 > This being said, is there much hazard in commenting out the FORBIDDEN line > in the openssl port and doing a 'make clean; make install PREFIX=3D/usr'? Not really. You could simply obtain OpenSSL from the OpenSSL people and compile it yourself.. there's no reason to use ports. --=20 wca --kkcDP0v44wDpNmbp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6ZmM2F47idPgWcsURAsmAAKCKukL1j/r6qozPPKOQPH8qCJ91ZACfUp1L fJO+YEtr9RymePCk//4MIAQ= =DTQH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kkcDP0v44wDpNmbp-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010117222959.M1761>