On Apr 18, 2018, at 06:47, Jan Stary wrote: >>> https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/607997ade7f0bd99c7a7297d7a49ae79442b705f > >>> aqua/qt5/Portfile | 2 +- >>> aqua/qt55/Portfile | 2 +- >>> aqua/qt56/Portfile | 2 +- >>> aqua/qt57/Portfile | 2 +- >>> aqua/qt58/Portfile | 2 +- >>> aqua/qt59/Portfile | 2 +- >>> databases/msodbcsql/Portfile | 2 +- >>> devel/cargo/Portfile | 2 +- >>> devel/fbthrift/Portfile | 2 +- >>> devel/folly/Portfile | 2 +- >>> devel/grpc/Portfile | 2 +- >>> devel/lua-luasec/Portfile | 2 +- >>> devel/qca/Portfile | 2 +- >>> devel/wangle/Portfile | 2 +- >>> finance/bitcoin/Portfile | 2 +- >>> math/octave/Portfile | 2 +- >>> net/libstrophe/Portfile | 2 +- >>> net/mosquitto/Portfile | 2 +- >>> net/profanity/Portfile | 2 +- >>> net/qpid-proton/Portfile | 2 +- >>> net/snort/Portfile | 2 +- >>> science/ldas-tools-framecpp/Portfile | 2 +- >>> textproc/html-xml-utils/Portfile | 2 +- >>> www/phantomjs/Portfile | 2 +- >>> 24 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > Thank you! > > If I am reading the syntax right, path: as opposed to lib: means > that only lib/libssl.dylib (relative path) under $prefix will be used. > https://guide.macports.org/chunked/reference.dependencies.html > Is that intended?
Yes, that is correct and intentional. > How was this "misc" subset selected? Was it simply the missing ones? > It seems that now all ports use this, with the following exceptions: > > net/qpid-proton (+openssl) port:openssl > python/py-grpcio/Portfile: port:openssl > > Where these intentionally left out? They weren't left out. qpid-proton was changed, but then subsequently reverted, for possibly invalid reasons: https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/1531#issuecomment-379178034 py-grpcio was not included in Jeremy's commit because it didn't exist at the time; it was added 3 days later: https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/1536 > Also, the following require a specific version: > > devel/libpdel lib:libssl.0.9:openssl > mail/qpopper lib:libssl.0:openssl > mail/sylpheed-devel (+ssl) lib:libssl.0.9:openssl > net/jabber lib:libssl.0.9:openssl > www/links1 (+ssl) lib:libssl.0.9:openssl > > Were these also intentinally left out? (And should > ports that require openssl 0.9 be killed with fire?) It seems unlikely that those ports require openssl 0.9 specifically, but rather that those ports have not been updated since we started recommending the use of port: dependencies instead of lib: dependencies a decade or more ago.
