Am 30.06.2017 um 16:53 schrieb Steve Wills: > We can test rubygem-grpc 1.4.1, but as long as devel/grpc is using the > bundled boringssl instead of the one from the security/boringssl port, > rubygem-grpc might as well use it's bundled copy of boringssl. > > I was really hoping to avoid that as I really think bundling libs is a > bad idea in general and not something we should do. That's why I created > the boringssl port. > > Would you mind telling me why you didn't want to take that part of the > change to grpc? I don't mean to sound critical, of course. I may even > decide I agree with you, but I can't until I know the reasoning. :) > > Also, for the record, the boringssl port has potential to cause some > issues. Mathieu has agreed to look into fixing them. Copying him so he > can reply if his changes to boringssl require changes to the versions of > grpc and rubygem-grpc ports that link against the shared boringssl.
Thank you all for your support. I finished today some other required rubygem ports which are required for gitlab 9.1. I was now able to build gitlab 9.1 with all dependencies. The current ports snapshot can be found here: http://gitlab.toco-domains.de/FreeBSD/GitLab/tree/9.1 Buildlogs here: https://pkg.fechner.net/index.html I will try to upgrade tomorrow a gitlab installation with these package to version 9.1, to see if the new version works. But how to test gitaly (which requires rubygem-grpc) is not clear for me. I have to do some rtfm here ;) Gruß Matthias -- "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." -- Rich Cook
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
