On 26/03/2013 11:53, Shane Ambler wrote:
Either the man pages list is incorrect or heimdal installs a
duplicate copy of the openssl man pages - maybe this could be
disabled if openssl from ports is used.
For reference - heimdal includes source for libhcrypto which it uses if
openssl
install system overlooked it.
Either the man pages list is incorrect or heimdal installs a duplicate
copy of the openssl man pages - maybe this could be disabled if openssl
from ports is used.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http
On 22/03/2013 04:36, Jim Ballantine wrote:
But when I attempt to install the latest openssl for the
port system, it fails with a conflict (installs file in the same place)
with heimdal.
Take a close look at the message and what happens before. openssl only
gives a conflict message if the
The port is newer than the base version:
port is 1.0.1_8 and the base is 0.9.2
Both openssl and heimdal install fine from the base system src,
it's only when I try to install openssl from the ports, with heimdal
installed by the base system that I get the error.
When I run make install, what I
Hi,
I understand that heimdal and openssl are both port of the base system and
both install
fine with a system build/install. But when I attempt to install the latest
openssl for the
port system, it fails with a conflict (installs file in the same place)
with heimdal. I've search
the web for an
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:06:52 -0400
Jim Ballantine articulated:
Hi,
I understand that heimdal and openssl are both port of the base
system and both install
fine with a system build/install. But when I attempt to install the
latest openssl for the
port system, it fails with a conflict
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 23:43:32 +
Matthew Seaman articulated:
Stable/9, but this hasn't changed in 9.0-RELEASE:
worm:~:# /usr/bin/openssl version
OpenSSL 0.9.8q 2 Dec 2010
Matthew, why does FreeBSD continue to use an older version of OPENSSL
for the base system when a newer version is
On 03/03/2012 12:19, Jerry wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 23:43:32 +
Matthew Seaman articulated:
Stable/9, but this hasn't changed in 9.0-RELEASE:
worm:~:# /usr/bin/openssl version
OpenSSL 0.9.8q 2 Dec 2010
Matthew, why does FreeBSD continue to use an older version of OPENSSL
for the
Matthew Seaman wrote:
Stable/9, but this hasn't changed in 9.0-RELEASE:
worm:~:# /usr/bin/openssl version
OpenSSL 0.9.8q 2 Dec 2010
Matthew, why does FreeBSD continue to use an older version of OPENSSL
for the base system when a newer version is available? While I could
understand, even if
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:49:18 +
Matthew Seaman articulated:
Unfortunately I can't answer that. I'm not in any position to decide
such things.
However I can hazard a guess at some of the possible reasons:
* openssl API changes between 0.9.x and 1.0.0 mean updating the
shlibs
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 08:31:41 -0500
Jerry wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:49:18 +
Matthew Seaman articulated:
Unfortunately I can't answer that. I'm not in any position to
decide such things.
However I can hazard a guess at some of the possible reasons:
* openssl API changes
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Jerry je...@seibercom.net wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:49:18 +
Matthew Seaman articulated:
Unfortunately I can't answer that. I'm not in any position to decide
such things.
However I can hazard a guess at some of the possible reasons:
* openssl API
One more thing. An easy contribution that could be made is to replace
the old version of openssl with the new in the src tree of CURRENT.
Then build world and see what breaks. Try to fix what has broken.
Contribute patches up to the point that you don't understand the next
step or you have build
Oops. Sorry, my mail reader must have recently changed the behavior
of the reply button to always reply all. I meant that to be off-list.
I apologize.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 16:41:13 -0500
Robert Simmons articulated:
Oops. Sorry, my mail reader must have recently changed the behavior
of the reply button to always reply all. I meant that to be off-list.
Thanks Robert, there aren't many things I appreciate more than advice
and criticism from
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Jerry je...@seibercom.net wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 16:41:13 -0500
Robert Simmons articulated:
Oops. Sorry, my mail reader must have recently changed the behavior
of the reply button to always reply all. I meant that to be off-list.
Thanks Robert, there
On 03/04/12 08:50, Robert Simmons wrote:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Jerryje...@seibercom.net wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 16:41:13 -0500
Robert Simmons articulated:
Oops. Sorry, my mail reader must have recently changed the behavior
of the reply button to always reply all. I meant that
Robert == Robert Simmons rsimmo...@gmail.com writes:
Robert I'm replying off-list. No need to reply this back onto the
Robert list.
Eh?
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/
I know openssl is in the core, but the version in FreeBSD 8.2 is
vulnerable to some recent attacks. (Hmm, I wonder why there hasn't been
an 8.2 update then...)
I installed the version from ports, which was recently updated, but now
I'm not sure how to get my other ports to use that port instead
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Randal L. Schwartz
mer...@stonehenge.com wrote:
I know openssl is in the core, but the version in FreeBSD 8.2 is
vulnerable to some recent attacks. (Hmm, I wonder why there hasn't been
an 8.2 update then...)
Which attacks are you referring to?
I installed
Maxim == Maxim Khitrov m...@mxcrypt.com writes:
Maxim On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Randal L. Schwartz
Maxim mer...@stonehenge.com wrote:
I know openssl is in the core, but the version in FreeBSD 8.2 is
vulnerable to some recent attacks. (Hmm, I wonder why there hasn't been
an 8.2 update
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:00:06 -0800
Randal L. Schwartz articulated:
I know openssl is in the core, but the version in FreeBSD 8.2 is
vulnerable to some recent attacks. (Hmm, I wonder why there hasn't
been an 8.2 update then...)
I installed the version from ports, which was recently
Jerry == Jerry je...@seibercom.net writes:
Jerry I have used the port's version for quite some time now. I am not sure
Jerry if it is still required; however, I placed the following in the
Jerry /etc/make.conf file:
Jerry WITH_OPENSSL_PORT=yes
Jerry I then rebuilt all of the ports that
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:27:23 -0800
Randal L. Schwartz articulated:
So it looks like modern FreeBSD will Do The Right Thing if I just
recompile the apache22 port. Once I knew what to look for, I found it
with a bit of grepping.
On a FreeBSD-8.2 STABLE system, I have this as the OPENSSL
On 02/03/2012 23:21, Jerry wrote:
I am not sure why the base system lags so far behind the ports
version, but it does. What is the base version in the FreeBSD-9.0
release?
Stable/9, but this hasn't changed in 9.0-RELEASE:
worm:~:# /usr/bin/openssl version
OpenSSL 0.9.8q 2 Dec 2010
On 02/03/2012 22:27, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Ahh, according to my read of /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.openssl.mk,
it looks like:
# if no preference was set, check for an installed base version
# but give an installed port preference over it.
.if
On 3 Feb 2010, at 03:36, Olivier Nicole wrote:
I have one port, namely /usr/ports/www/pound that needs the version of
openssl from the ports (/usr/ports/security/openssl).
But others ports works way better with the stock openssl from the
system.
Personally, I've been using the ports
OK, this /should/ work. Add the following to /etc/make.conf:
WITH_OPENSSL_BASE= yes
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/www/pound}
WITH_OPENSSL_PORT= yes
.endif
No, it won't -- at least, if you leave it in make.conf after building
www/pound, it wil break all subsequent rebuilds of all other ports
that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/02/2010 12:57, b. f. wrote:
OK, this /should/ work. Add the following to /etc/make.conf:
WITH_OPENSSL_BASE= yes
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/www/pound}
WITH_OPENSSL_PORT= yes
.endif
No, it won't -- at least, if you leave it in
Hi,
I have one port, namely /usr/ports/www/pound that needs the version of
openssl from the ports (/usr/ports/security/openssl).
But others ports works way better with the stock openssl from the
system.
Is there a configuration somewhere that could be used to say that
no-one except pound
Frederique Rijsdijk frederi...@isafeelin.org writes:
For a certain customer that wants to use a later version of OpenSSL
(base is at 'e' while ports is at 'j') I installed
/usr/ports/security/openssl. This is all fine, but now I have two sets
binaries and libraries of OpenSSL on that system.
For a certain customer that wants to use a later version of OpenSSL
(base is at 'e' while ports is at 'j') I installed
/usr/ports/security/openssl. This is all fine, but now I have two sets
binaries and libraries of OpenSSL on that system.
What is the proper way to remove the base openssl? I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
White Hat wrote:
Is there any real advantage to installing 'openssl'
from ports rather than using the version installed in
the base system? Other than the fact that the port
version is slightly newer, is there any other major
difference
Is there any real advantage to installing 'openssl'
from ports rather than using the version installed in
the base system? Other than the fact that the port
version is slightly newer, is there any other major
difference?
Also, if I did install the port version, how would I
insure
Hi All,
I installed openssl from the ports collection.
However, there is also an openssl native in freebsd.
How can i set things to use the openssl from the ports as default instead
of the system openssl?
Bye,
Mipam.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
35 matches
Mail list logo
