bsd.ports.mk, applications available as both part of system and ports

[Oleg Sharoiko]

I'm terribly sorry for resending my mail, but unfortunately I left the subject
empty and I afraid most of you will ignore my previous mail due to that. Sorry
once again.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Oleg Sharoiko wrote:

OS> Hello!
OS>
OS> I'd appreciate if someone clarify several issues concerning bsd.port.mk,
OS> bsd.port.pre.mk/bsd.port.post.mk:
OS>
OS> First of all, as far as I understand bsd.port.mk and
OS> bsd.port.pre.mk+bsd.port.post.mk are two different ways of doing the same
OS> things. If it is so, than what's the preferred method? I suppose it's
OS> .pre+.post because it gives more flexibility. If this is true than shouldn't
OS> the entire ports tree be moving towards using .pre+.post but not bsd.port.mk?
OS>
OS> Second, it's possible to build some applications both as ports and as parts of
OS> base system. Good example is OpenSSL. Such a possibility (of building it as
OS> port or as part of base systems) brings up a problem of specifying dependency
OS> in ports which depend on OpenSSL. There are currently two ways the port can
OS> depend on OpenSSL:
OS>
OS> 1. The port may include bsd.port.mk and define USE_OPENSSL. In this case port
OS> will be compiled only with OpenSSL in the base system.
OS>
OS> 2. The port may include bsd.port.pre.mk, bsd.port.post.mk and
OS> security/openssl/bsd.openssl.mk. Such a combination allows for user to specify
OS> which version of openssl is desired.
OS>
OS> As for me the second way is far much better than the first one. I'd like to
OS> know your opinions since some port maintainers disagree. They suggest
OS> installing OpenSSL from ports overwriting the base installation. I don't think
OS> that overwriting the base installation it the right thing.
OS>
OS> Overall: are there any rules for defining dependencies which can be both the
OS> part of base system or a port? Any port that depend on
OS> openssl/openssh/sendmail/cvs/... should use similar mechanism. Have it been
OS> worked out? Shouldn't bsd.openssl.mk be the way to go?
OS>
OS> In case .pre + .post by some reasons isn't the right thing than bsd.port.mk
OS> should definitely be fixed. It simply disallows the usage of openssl from
OS> ports, what I think is wrong (as well as the overwriting the base installation
OS> with openssl is).
OS>
OS> Thank you for your attention.
OS>
OS> p.s. We're not on the list, so please keep our emails in the To: or Cc:
OS>
OS>

-- 
Oleg Sharoiko.
Software and Network Engineer
Computer Center of Rostov State University.