Why ports are allowed to be linked with base OpenSSL?
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
>>> before, but why is this even allowed? If some ports are built with
>>> SSL_DEFAULT=base, and some with SSL_DEFAULT=openssl, this will
>>> 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
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the freebsd-ports