Growing list of required(ish) ports

Florent Peterschmitt florent at
Tue Apr 9 16:49:40 UTC 2013

Le mardi 09 avril 2013 à 06:09 -0700, Darren Pilgrim a écrit :
> On 2013-04-08 10:22, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
> > Yep, OpenSSH is tiny enought to keep it in base system. It would be a
> > big loss not to have it by default, securely installed in the base
> > system.
> I really wish it wasn't.  Having OpenSSH (and thus OpenSSL) in the base 
> means FreeBSD has an outdated version installed by default.  You have to 
> install openssl from ports in order to have modern cipher support, TLS 
> v1.1/1.2, DTLS, etc.  This puts two sets of openssl libs on the system 
> and creates recurrent headaches with builds where the autoconfiguration 
> selects the wrong set of libs.

Hum, I didn't thought about that. So I think it would be possible to
have a secondary « branch » for the distribution including something
like « special ports » which can be retrieved, built and managed (for
porters) quickly.

Anybody think something like that is relevant and possible to do ?

Florent Peterschmitt
+33 (0)6 64 33 97 92
florent at

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list