Re: using security/openssl in a port

On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 17:16:30 +1300 "Matthew Luckie" said On 1/5/18 5:09 PM, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > On 05.01.2018 09:44, Matthew Luckie wrote: > >> My main worry is that I could not find a single port that apparently >> depends on security/openssl. I'm worried that its

Re: using security/openssl in a port

On 1/5/18 5:09 PM, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > On 05.01.2018 09:44, Matthew Luckie wrote: > >> My main worry is that I could not find a single port that apparently >> depends on security/openssl. I'm worried that its more complicated than >> simply declaring a dependency on security/openssl on

Re: using security/openssl in a port

On 05.01.2018 09:44, Matthew Luckie wrote: > My main worry is that I could not find a single port that apparently > depends on security/openssl. I'm worried that its more complicated than > simply declaring a dependency on security/openssl on particular freebsd > versions because other ports

Re: using security/openssl in a port

On 01/05/18 15:37, Chris H wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:11:00 +1300 "Matthew Luckie" said > >> Hi, >> >> I maintain a port that has a new release which requires openssl 1.0.2 to >> build.  FreeBSD 10.3 and 10.4 both have openssl 1.0.1, and 11 onwards >> have 1.0.2.  Is

Re: using security/openssl in a port

On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:44:31 +1300 "Matthew Luckie" said On 01/05/18 15:37, Chris H wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:11:00 +1300 "Matthew Luckie" said > >> Hi, >> >> I maintain a port that has a new release which requires openssl 1.0.2 to >> build. 

Re: using security/openssl in a port

On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:11:00 +1300 "Matthew Luckie" said Hi, I maintain a port that has a new release which requires openssl 1.0.2 to build. FreeBSD 10.3 and 10.4 both have openssl 1.0.1, and 11 onwards have 1.0.2. Is there a magic way to have this port depend on ports

Re: using security/openssl in a port

05.01.2018 9:11, Matthew Luckie wrote: > I maintain a port that has a new release which requires openssl 1.0.2 to > build. FreeBSD 10.3 and 10.4 both have openssl 1.0.1, and 11 onwards > have 1.0.2. Is there a magic way to have this port depend on ports > openssl for freebsd releases without

using security/openssl in a port

Hi, I maintain a port that has a new release which requires openssl 1.0.2 to build. FreeBSD 10.3 and 10.4 both have openssl 1.0.1, and 11 onwards have 1.0.2. Is there a magic way to have this port depend on ports openssl for freebsd releases without openssl 1.0.2? I ran find /usr/ports -exec

Times to build just devel/llvm50 via poudriere-devel: Pine64+ 2GB, RPi3, RPi2 V1.1

All the below were: NO_ZFS=yes , USE_TMPFS=no , not using cccache, PARALLEL_JOBS=1 , ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS=yes . On the RPi2 V1.1 I also set: MAX_EXECUTION_TIME=432000 , NOHANG_TIME=28800 . Pine64+ 2GB: (so, 2GiBytes of RAM on cortex-a53, eMMC in usdcard slot via adapter) [05:45:14] [01] [00:00:00]

Re: FLAVOR for Qt4 and Qt5 (was Re: Flavor or not for this port?)

Hi Mathieu, Thank you for your review and tips. I have just submitted the patch. Rainer, QGis 2 may be able to use Qwt6 instead of Qwt5? Regards. Loïc On 21.12.2017 17:10, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Le 19/12/2017 à 20:48, L.Bartoletti a écrit : Hi, Here's my WIP

Re: Ports with binary bootstrap packages and CURRENT+ino64

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 03:31:46PM +0100, Jean-Sébastien Pédron wrote: On 03.01.2018 01:06, Anthony Jenkins wrote: I'm having trouble building ports with a new Poudriere rig on a 12.0-CURRENT (git commit 423586ee).  The ports that fail are ones that require a binary bootstrap package (e.g.

Re: Ports with binary bootstrap packages and CURRENT+ino64

On 03.01.2018 01:06, Anthony Jenkins wrote: > I'm having trouble building ports with a new Poudriere rig on a > 12.0-CURRENT (git commit 423586ee).  The ports that fail are ones that > require a binary bootstrap package (e.g. lang/rust and java/openjdk8).  > The executables in these bootstrap