Gleydson Soares wrote:
> > Regarding setting NO_TEST, bsd.port.mk(5) says it should be set to Yes
> > "only for ports with no regression test", so I'm not sure if using Yes
> > here would be an abuse.
>
> yes, right.
> maybe we should add a comment showing that failure is kwown.
Sure, no proble
> Deployed this on my server and I don't see any issue so far. In fact,
> prosody is communicating over TLS without problems, so I'd it's OK
> from prosody side.
thanks for testing, i have just committed the luasec update.
> Regarding setting NO_TEST, bsd.port.mk(5) says it should be set to Yes
>
Hi Gleydson,
thanks for reaching out.
> the following diff updates luasec to 0.9.
>
> the only consumer of luasec on ports is net/prosody
Deployed this on my server and I don't see any issue so far. In fact,
prosody is communicating over TLS without problems, so I'd it's OK
from prosody side.
the following diff updates luasec to 0.9.
the only consumer of luasec on ports is net/prosody
looks like regress is broken though, see:
===> Regression tests for prosody-0.11.5
busted --lua=lua51
/bin/sh: busted: not found
seems lua-busted is not in ports yet, so maybe we should
set NO_TEST unt
