26.09.2025 19:25, Rafael Sadowski пишет:
> On Fri Sep 26, 2025 at 03:58:01PM +0000, Klemens Nanni wrote:
>> 16.09.2025 11:49, Rafael Sadowski пишет:
>>> On Sun Sep 07, 2025 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>>> On 2025/09/07 08:43, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
>>>>> On Fri Sep 05, 2025 at 07:05:59PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
>>>>>>> "You cannot use eopenssl35" I don't understand that ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the dependency tree is a horrific mess and has parts that
>>>>>> already pull in libcrypto and libssl from base. Mistakes in the
>>>>>> dependencies in Qt land happen all the time. How do you know that
>>>>>> you don't end up mixing libressl and openssl which will blow up sooner
>>>>>> or later?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point we can't mix libcrypto from base and eopenssl35,
>>>>> nevertheless it would be nice to import the 24 version.
>>>>
>>>> Some things just aren't going to be able to work on OpenBSD.
>>>
>>> Yes, but the attached and suggested port version 25.04.3 works
>>> well with libressl
>>
>> The tarball you sent looks OK and builds.
>>
>> Although update-plist makes me wonder whether this is fine or an oversight:
>>
>> 	...
>> 	Can't put into any plist (no applicable prefix):
>> 		/firmware
>> 		/rc.d
>> 	Looking for unregistered conflicts
>>
> 
> I always took that as a warning. The alternative is to delete
> these files, but since they don't end up in PLIST anyway, I
> organized them.
> 
>>
>>> and we can pin to this version until consumers
>>> use the openssl-only openssl/param_build.h stuff.
>>
>> What does "pin" mean?
>>
>>>
>>> I tested the upcoming 25.08 and it doesn't need it yet.
>>
>> If that's the case, your comment block in the Makefile about openssl35
>> looks incorrect and should go.
> 
> The new plan is to stick with 25.04.3, even if we update the rest
> to 25.08.

OK kn to import with the comment block removed as it does rather confuse then help, imho.