On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 05:06:47PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2014/04/18 17:45, Joachim Schipper wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:24:16PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > Pulling some things together;
> > >
> > > - pull across Joachim's rand fixes
> > > - rename binaries, similar to diff from benoit@ but with less patching
> > > of CMakefiles
> > > - enable shared libs on arch where they're supported (similar to
> > > diff from dcoppa@)
> > > - BROKEN-sparc64 as reported by florian@
> > >
> > > This is in good shape to go in. OK to import?
> >
> > I agree that this is, qua port, just fine; but I'd be happier to see the
> > sample programs a bit further out of the way - polarssl_aescrypt2 looks
> > fine, but actually encrypts in the very weak ECB mode.
> >
> > Compare my MULTI_PACKAGES and pkg/SECURITY. Admittedly, I've been
> > spooked by the quality of the 1.2.x samples, and the 1.3 samples are
> > _much_ better. I still wouldn't want to rely on them, though...
>
> How's this? We don't use pkg/SECURITY files any more (and they weren't
> installed anyway, so not visible to package users).
Yes, that looks fine to me (and builds, etc.) You might consider
README.txt or ReadMe.txt instead of readme.txt; those names sort before
the rest of the programs in the "C" locale. But I'm happy either way.
(I haven't kept up with OpenBSD lately. I'll try to find more time.)
Joachim
--- Makefile.orig Fri Apr 18 18:37:08 2014
+++ Makefile Fri Apr 18 18:37:14 2014
@@ -37,6 +37,6 @@
mv ${PREFIX}/bin ${PREFIX}/share/examples/polarssl
(echo "These programs are useful code samples for a crypto expert,
but";\
echo "should not be relied upon by the normal end-user.") \
- > ${PREFIX}/share/examples/polarssl/readme.txt
+ > ${PREFIX}/share/examples/polarssl/README.txt
.include <bsd.port.mk>
