Why ports are allowed to be linked with base OpenSSL?

Mathieu Arnold mat at FreeBSD.org
Mon Oct 16 09:35:55 UTC 2017

Le 16/10/2017 à 00:31, Mel Pilgrim a écrit :
> 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?

To have the default SSL be the ports one, you also need the default
kerberos to be the ports one, and the ports kerberos (from what I
undernstand) is not compatible with the base one.

Mathieu Arnold

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20171016/52110869/attachment.sig>

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list