Re: Adding mk/ssl.buildlink3.mk

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>]

On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 03:35:23PM +0100, David Brownlee wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 13:16, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 09:46:14AM +0100, David Brownlee wrote:
> > > 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
> >
> > I don't really see the point. We can pick a second version just as
> > easily from the existing security/openssl/b3.mk without all the churn.
> 
> Well
> a) It's intended to grow into handling other ssl providers rather than
> just openssl

I don't expect any of the OpenSSL forks to be supported for much of the
tree without a *lot* of work. That includes libressl.

> b) We have a general pattern of putting this sort of buildlink3 logic
> in /pkgsrc/mk - though that's not always the case. OK, cue another
> mini bikeshed on what the naming pattern should be going forward
> (pause this - new thread coming up)

I also don't think we did a mass subst like this for a long time and it
seems ...premature.

Joerg