Dave Voutila <d...@sisu.io> wrote: > Theo de Raadt writes: > > > Dave Voutila <d...@sisu.io> wrote: > > > >> Theo de Raadt writes: > >> > >> >> I think the easiest path here is to incorporate the new upstream into a > >> >> port, unless someone is familiar with zlib and can cherrypick out the > >> >> commit(s) that resolve the issue. (I didn't find zlib in ports already.) > >> > > >> > That is completely impossible. It must be in base. There are 3 copies > >> > in base -- userland, kernel, and bootblocks. They must be kept in sync. > >> > >> Not saying to replace what's in base, but have a different version in > >> ports available for ports. I was thinking along the lines of egcc or > >> eopenssl in that the port co-exists with base and ports that need them > >> need tweaking to use them. > > > > You've got to be kidding. In what world does it help to require -I and > > -l lines all over the place, or else everything breaks. > > I'm in 100% agreement it sucks and it's something I believe is already > done for ports that require OpenSSL. /shrug. My thinking was instead of > having to test all of base across all archs with any potential fix, we > could isolate the change to maybe the R port if other R packages or > whatever have run into this. > > But I'm not volunteering to do either so I'll stop beating this horse > now before it never walks again.
This is crazy. It is probably a 2-3 line fix. If only we had an explanation of what is actually wrong and needs fixing...
