On Jun 29, 2020, at 00:58, Christopher Chavez wrote: > > I'm not sure it applies here, but the pattern being applied to other > ports is to replace port:openssl with path:lib/libssl.dylib:openssl, so > as to allow using LibreSSL but fallback to installing OpenSSL if neither > is already present.
Since the user even verified that it builds fine with libressl, yes, that's what should be used here. Until we handle libressl and openssl separately as we should (see ticket), Portfile authors should assume that libressl will work as a replacement for openssl in their ports and use the above syntax. Only if it can be shown that libressl is not compatible and if no patch to fix that can be found should it be changed to port:openssl. In that case, add a comment with a link to the upstream bug report or discussion.
