Re: openssl vs. libressl

On Nov 11, 2015, at 11:00 AM, wood...@gmail.com wrote: > On Nov 11, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:52 AM, wrote: >> I don’t believe a “better license” should be the dictating factor, I believe >> what should dictate what is included is what has bette

Re: Error installing Cairo/ Pango/ ncurses/ port self updates and so on..

On Nov 11, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Gazei Ajkl wrote: > I’ve tried a lot as the following commands: > - sudo clean port … of several ports which had problems > - sudo port selfupdate > - sudo port upgrade outdated > - reinstalled gfortran-5.2-Yosemite > - uninstalled and reinstalled MacPorts-2.3.4-10.11

Re: Error installing Cairo/ Pango/ ncurses/ port self updates and so on..

On Nov 11, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Gazei Ajkl wrote: > I’m new to this whole topic. For that reason I’m sorry if there is some > unprofessional way of reporting my bug. > I’ve been using GNUplot for my scientific diagrams. > I wanted to install > sudo port install cairo +no_x11 +quartz +universal >

Re: Volunteer for a workshop on "setting up your own buildbot/buildslave"? (Was: Experiences with El Capitan)

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Ulrich Wienands wrote: > there is at least one person in the universe very interested in PPC > software… myself You are not alone … -- Eneko Gotzon Ares enekogot...@gmail.com ___

Error installing Cairo/ Pango/ ncurses/ port self updates and so on..

Hi everyone,I’m new to this whole topic. For that reason I’m sorry if there is some unprofessional way of reporting my bug.I’ve been using GNUplot for my scientific diagrams.I wanted to install   sudo port install cairo +no_x11 +quartz +universal  sudo port install pango +no_x11 +quartz +universalt

Re: poll: expected return string of ApplicationsLocation from Qt's QStandardPaths

On Wednesday November 11 2015 18:08:47 René J.V. Bertin wrote: For completeness, here's the list of all locations returned by QStandardPaths; standard and writable, regular and testing mode, native and XDG-compliant mode. I'd appreciate extra pairs of eyes checking for inconsistencies, errors and

Re: openssl vs. libressl

Yes in this case, its a convenance, what TECHNICAL benefits are there to changing ? > On Nov 11, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:05 PM, > wrote: > But in this case, I don’t see one, openssl has been fine being distributed > th

poll: expected return string of ApplicationsLocation from Qt's QStandardPaths

Hi, I just had a close shave with losing my whole /Applications directory which ultimately was caused by the fact that Qt5 provides a QStandardPaths class, which returns "/Applications" for both the readable and writable versions of "ApplicationsLocation". The application using that return val

Re: openssl vs. libressl

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:05 PM, wrote: > But in this case, I don’t see one, openssl has been fine being distributed > the way it is, its just that some people want a new-shiny here. So binary archives are a new-shiny with no practical significance. Got it. -- brandon s allbery kf8nh

Re: openssl vs. libressl

But in this case, I don’t see one, openssl has been fine being distributed the way it is, its just that some people want a new-shiny here. > On Nov 11, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:00 PM, > wrote: > I agree, but “better lic

Re: openssl vs. libressl

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:00 PM, wrote: > I agree, but “better license” has nothing to do with that, does it ? It is the license that blocks binary distribution, with specific exemptions. Oddly enough, licenses are not merely political noise; they actually have practical ramifications that nee

Re: openssl vs. libressl

I agree, but “better license” has nothing to do with that, does it ? My point is we should look at the best technical solution, and THAT should be the only factor. Anything else is ancillary. > On Nov 11, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:52 AM,

Re: openssl vs. libressl

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:57 AM, René J.V. wrote: > On Wednesday November 11 2015 08:14:59 Bradley Giesbrecht wrote: > > > On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:15 AM, René J.V. Bertin > wrote: > > > I believe most openssl dependent ports are not binary distributable due > to the openssl license. > > There is

Re: openssl vs. libressl

On Wednesday November 11 2015 08:14:59 Bradley Giesbrecht wrote: > > On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:15 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > I believe most openssl dependent ports are not binary distributable due to > the openssl license. There is indeed some kind of restriction, but apparently not as severe as

Re: openssl vs. libressl

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:52 AM, wrote: > I don’t believe a “better license” should be the dictating factor, I > believe what should dictate what is included is what has better > functionality. This is politics, and TBH is not a technical reason for > inclusion or exclusion. TBH, I believe the o

Re: openssl vs. libressl

I don’t believe a “better license” should be the dictating factor, I believe what should dictate what is included is what has better functionality. This is politics, and TBH is not a technical reason for inclusion or exclusion. TBH, I believe the only dictating factor should be technical, what d

Re: Tickets #45740 and #45739

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Mark Brethen wrote: > > There are a couple of tickets I have been working on for over a year that I > would like to get checked out. Convenience links: https://trac.macports.org/ticket/45740 https://trac.macports.org/ticket/45739 Regards, Bradley Giesbrecht (pi

Fwd: openssl vs. libressl

> Begin forwarded message: > > From: Bradley Giesbrecht > Date: November 11, 2015 at 10:14:59 AM CST > To: "René J.V. Bertin" > Cc: Ryan Schmidt , Jeremy Huddleston > , MacPorts Users > Subject: Re: openssl vs. libressl > >> On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:15 AM, René J.V. Bertin >

Tickets #45740 and #45739

There are a couple of tickets I have been working on for over a year that I would like to get checked out. Thanks, Mark ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-user

Re: openssl vs. libressl

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:15 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > - when a user made the opposite choice (say libressl instead of openssl), > doing `port install curl` (for example) will translate to `port install curl > +libressl` which means s/he won't benefit of binary packages for curl when > cur

Re: openssl vs. libressl

On Wednesday November 11 2015 06:27:29 Ryan Schmidt wrote: >Providing choice is not a primary goal of MacPorts. Providing software that >works is. >It seems libressl is the default ssl library in OpenBSD since one year. I think that's hardly long enough in an OS that's hardly a mainstream OS use

Re: openssl vs. libressl

On Nov 11, 2015, at 6:15 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > On Wednesday November 11 2015 05:27:49 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> If we don't want to switch to libressl as a default, then I don't know why >> libressl is in MacPorts. > > To provide choice. Providing choice is not a primary goal of MacPor

Re: openssl vs. libressl

On Wednesday November 11 2015 05:27:49 Ryan Schmidt wrote: >If we don't want to switch to libressl as a default, then I don't know why >libressl is in MacPorts. To provide choice. Apart from the fact that the ssl ports can't be swapped without rebuilding all dependents, the only thing that does

Re: openssl vs. libressl

On Nov 10, 2015, at 6:11 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > On Tuesday November 10 2015 04:46:50 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >>> No, but if the ABIs are indeed not compatible there is no other solution, >>> is there? >> >> What has currently be done with libressl in MacPorts is a bug, not a >> solution.

Re: openssl vs. libressl

On Nov 10, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2015, at 00:17, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> On Nov 9, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: >> >>> On Nov 9, 2015, at 13:10, René J.V. Bertin wrote: >>> On Monday November 09 2015 15:05:26 Ryan Schmidt

Re: openssl vs. libressl

On Tuesday November 10 2015 18:55:51 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: >Actually, this won't solve the problem. The entire problem here is that >OpenSSL and Libressl are note compatible. Projects need to be recompiled to >use one or the other. The only way to do this in a way that doesn't rely