Re: Adding mk/ssl.buildlink3.mk

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 10:26:40AM +0100, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
 > > So... anyone have any objections to me making it openssl.buildlink3.mk instead?
 > 
 > Yes, strongly.  Duplicating logic is unnecessary and would make future
 > maintenance harder.  Just have one file and a variable that selects
 > implementations, just like we have for everything else.

Do we really want to try to drive choices with zero source-level
compatibility (e.g.  gnutls and openssl) from the same ssl.mk? That
doesn't seem like an achievable goal.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost