Adding mk/ssl.buildlink3.mk

[David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost>]

Would anyone object to me making a pass through the tree to replace

.include "../../security/openssl/buildlink3.mk"

with

.include "../../mk/ssl.buildlink3.mk"

and adding a simple mk/ssl.buildlink3.mk which just includes
security/openssl/buildlink3.mk

This is to
- make it easier to for people to test openssl3 before it's ready for
general switch by just modifying one file
- provide a single point to later modify to select openssl1 vs openss3
on a per platform basis

David

On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 15:29, Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost> writes:
>
> >> This really bears on the question of whether openssl3 is optional or
> >> required.  Right now netbsd 9 has 1.1.1 and that's likely to continue,
> >> and I don't think it's good to force those systems that to move to 3,
> >> especially since 3 has at this point been out less than a month.
> >
> > Adding mk/ssl.buildlink3.mk now does not require any decision on
> > whether and when some or all systems switch to openssl3.
>
> What I meant was that being able to select versions requires adding a
> mk/bl3, not that adding a mk/bl3 forces anything.
>
> > It does:
> > - split changes to use mk/ssl.buildlink3.mk from changes to make
> > things work under openssl3 (akin to making a refactoring pass to
> > rename methods as a separate commit to adding functionality :)
> > - make it reasonable to add security/openssl3 to pkgsrc and to give an
> > easier way for people to test openssl3 before it's ready for general
> > switch
> > - allow more nuance on choosing openssl1 vs 3 on a platform and system basis
>
> I think that's all good.  It's clear that there are people that want
> openssl3 now and people that want to stay with 1.1.1 for now, as it has
> upstream support and everything works.
>
> And, netbsd-current is likely going to get openssl3 soon.
>
> > The initial commit could be as simple as adding a mk/ssl.buildlink3.mk
> > which unconditionally includes ../../security/openssl/buildlink3.mk,
> > plus an extra check to pkglint
>
> Having a mk/bl3 and a switch for openssl 1.1.1 vs 3 (one global switch)
> with platform-specific defaults sounds like a reasonable near-term
> approach.
>
> Barring objections, which I don't expect, if you are inclined to start
> on this, that sounds good.