* Felix Palmen <[email protected]> [20211005 08:38]: > If that would be consensus, I think it would be better to remove the > option altogether. What's the point of having a totally unsupported and > experimental option in ports anyways?
To get that straight, I think a decision is needed here. Either libressl in ports is supported, IMHO, that would mean: * try to push necessary patches upstream * if that's not possible, maintain them locally * if that's not possible (e.g. because the patch is really intrusive and needs to change all the time), mark the port BROKEN/IGNORE with libressl * It's never ok to have a build failure OR libressl is *not* supported, then I really think it should be removed from DEFAULT_VERSIONS. -- Dipl.-Inform. Felix Palmen <[email protected]> ,.//.......... {web} http://palmen-it.de {jabber} [see email] ,//palmen-it.de {pgp public key} http://palmen-it.de/pub.txt // """"""""""" {pgp fingerprint} A891 3D55 5F2E 3A74 3965 B997 3EF2 8B0A BC02 DA2A
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
