> On Apr 18, 2018, at 21:17, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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.
Yeah, the intention was just to update all of them consistently. It's true that some of those ports might not work with libressl, but IMO it would be better to have a report of the build failure that we can act on to fix than to have port err out because we missed something. I haven't personally tried every single port (since actually some of them have dependencies that fail to build on my system which I haven't worked through) Thanks for pointing these out. I'll take a look through them. grep doesn't find everything unless you know what you're looking for ;) --Jeremy
