26.09.2025 19:25, Rafael Sadowski пишет: > 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.
OK kn to import with the comment block removed as it does rather confuse then help, imho.
