> On May 21, 2017, at 22:11, Zero King <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 09:59:28PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >>> On May 21, 2017, at 21:50, Zero King <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Yes. For LibreSSL users libtls.dylib already exists so libtls won't be >>> installed with this variant and for OpenSSL users libtls can be >>> installed. Most users already have one of them installed or would stick >>> to the default (openssl), so I think it's safe to use depends_lib-append >>> path:lib/libtls.dylib:libtls in the variant. >> >> We shouldn't have two ports that install the same software. Sounds like >> libtls should provide the library, and libressl should depend on it. The >> deactivate hack will have to be used to make that work. > > I'd prefer to keep the libressl port contents untouched. openssl and > libressl install the same software too.
Obviously, they don't. openssl installs openssl. libressl installs libressl. > @jeremyhu is the maintainer so > it's up to him to > > 1. not add the libtls port > 2. add it and keep libressl as is > 3. separate libtls from libressl
