Index | Thread | Search

From:
Klemens Nanni <kn@openbsd.org>
Subject:
Re: security/acme.sh: new port (version 3.0.9)
To:
Landry Breuil <landry@openbsd.org>, OpenBSD ports <ports@openbsd.org>
Date:
Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:53:05 +0000

Download raw body.

Thread
14.11.2024 19:46, Kirill A. Korinsky пишет:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:00:40 +0100,
> Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
>>
>> That does make it sound a bit like it's ZeroSSL-only. How about adding
>> a wiki link?
>>
>> Note that acme.sh uses ZeroSSL as the certificate authority by default.
>> See https://github.com/acmesh-official/acme.sh/wiki/Server if you would
>> like to use Let's Encrypt or another CA.
>>
>> With that or similar, OK sthen.
>>
> 
> Thanks for cleaner wording. An updated tgz.

HOMEPAGE is set by DIST_TUPLE already.

One script has /bin/bash as shebang.

Another makes our sh(1) and ksh(1) fail whereas bash(1) is happy.

Upstream uses shellcheck(1) in their GitHub flows, you could add something
similar in a do-test target, if you like.
https://github.com/acmesh-official/acme.sh/blob/75b4bb306b7967dd480f70ef7e2d61947adabe98/.github/workflows/shellcheck.yml#L29

At a mininum, I'd syntax check all scripts we install;  this seems like a
good opportunity to find subtle differences between our sh(1) and others:

do-test:
	find ${WRKSRC} -type f -name \*.sh -exec sh -n {} \;