Growing list of required(ish) ports

Robert Simmons rsimmons0 at
Tue Apr 9 17:03:35 UTC 2013

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Florent Peterschmitt
<florent at> wrote:
> 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 means FreeBSD has an outdated version installed by default.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 ?

One thing to note is that these parts of base are kept just about as
up-to-date as ports over in the HEAD branch.  In the case of OpenSSH,
HEAD is way way more up to date than ports.  These changes are also
fairly quickly MFC'd over to stable.  The real hiccup is that these
changes don't dribble out of freebsd-update.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list