On 01.05.14 17:26, Uwe Doering wrote: > On 01.05.14 16:33, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On May 1, 2014, at 3:03 AM, Uwe Doering <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I indeed wondered why this variable hadn't been mentioned so far. Guys, >>> you do have "WITH_OPENSSL_PORT=yes" in your "/etc/make.conf", haven't you? >>> >>> Because otherwise the whole thread might be considered a false alert. >>> The ports system does not link with the ports' OpenSSL of its own >>> accord. Or at least not in a reliable/predictable manner. You have to >>> explicitly tell it what you want. >> >> Please consider whether it is appropriate to chide people for not knowing about an *undocumented* feature of make.conf. > > First of all, I certainly didn't intend to chide anyone, so I apologize > if some of you got the impression. Having worked with FreeBSD and the > ports system for years I was under the impression that this information > would be readily available in the docs. > > But on further research it appears to me that this is indeed pretty well > hidden in only some mailing list and forum articles, where I probably > learned it from in the past. > [...] One additional data point: "WITH_OPENSSL_PORT" is mentioned in the FreeBSD Porter's Handbook: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-options.html#idp67984816 But then, it cannot be expected that mere _users_ of the ports tree read the Porter's Handbook. And it is also not mentioned there that it is, to my knowledge, considered good practice to have that setting in "/etc/make.conf" in order to avoid any confusion about which port is linked with what version of OpenSSL. Best regards, Uwe -- Uwe Doering [email protected] _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"