On Fri Sep 26, 2025 at 03:58:01PM +0000, Klemens Nanni wrote: > 16.09.2025 11:49, Rafael Sadowski пишет: > > On Sun Sep 07, 2025 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >> On 2025/09/07 08:43, Rafael Sadowski wrote: > >>> On Fri Sep 05, 2025 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote: > >>>>> "You cannot use eopenssl35" I don't understand that ;) > >>>> > >>>> Because the dependency tree is a horrific mess and has parts that > >>>> already pull in libcrypto and libssl from base. Mistakes in the > >>>> dependencies in Qt land happen all the time. How do you know that > >>>> you don't end up mixing libressl and openssl which will blow up sooner > >>>> or later? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Good point we can't mix libcrypto from base and eopenssl35, > >>> nevertheless it would be nice to import the 24 version. > >> > >> Some things just aren't going to be able to work on OpenBSD. > > > > Yes, but the attached and suggested port version 25.04.3 works > > well with libressl > > The tarball you sent looks OK and builds. > > Although update-plist makes me wonder whether this is fine or an oversight: > > ... > Can't put into any plist (no applicable prefix): > /firmware > /rc.d > Looking for unregistered conflicts >
I always took that as a warning. The alternative is to delete these files, but since they don't end up in PLIST anyway, I organized them. > > > and we can pin to this version until consumers > > use the openssl-only openssl/param_build.h stuff. > > What does "pin" mean? > > > > > I tested the upcoming 25.08 and it doesn't need it yet. > > If that's the case, your comment block in the Makefile about openssl35 > looks incorrect and should go. The new plan is to stick with 25.04.3, even if we update the rest to 25.08.
