On Fri Sep 26, 2025 at 03:58:01PM +0000, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> 16.09.2025 11:49, Rafael Sadowski пишет:
> > On Sun Sep 07, 2025 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >> On 2025/09/07 08:43, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> >>> On Fri Sep 05, 2025 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
> >>>>> "You cannot use eopenssl35" I don't understand that ;)
> >>>>
> >>>> Because the dependency tree is a horrific mess and has parts that
> >>>> already pull in libcrypto and libssl from base. Mistakes in the
> >>>> dependencies in Qt land happen all the time. How do you know that
> >>>> you don't end up mixing libressl and openssl which will blow up sooner
> >>>> or later?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Good point we can't mix libcrypto from base and eopenssl35,
> >>> nevertheless it would be nice to import the 24 version.
> >>
> >> Some things just aren't going to be able to work on OpenBSD.
> >
> > Yes, but the attached and suggested port version 25.04.3 works
> > well with libressl
>
> The tarball you sent looks OK and builds.
>
> Although update-plist makes me wonder whether this is fine or an oversight:
>
> ...
> Can't put into any plist (no applicable prefix):
> /firmware
> /rc.d
> Looking for unregistered conflicts
>
I always took that as a warning. The alternative is to delete
these files, but since they don't end up in PLIST anyway, I
organized them.
>
> > and we can pin to this version until consumers
> > use the openssl-only openssl/param_build.h stuff.
>
> What does "pin" mean?
>
> >
> > I tested the upcoming 25.08 and it doesn't need it yet.
>
> If that's the case, your comment block in the Makefile about openssl35
> looks incorrect and should go.
The new plan is to stick with 25.04.3, even if we update the rest
to 25.08.
No comments:
Post a Comment