Re: OpenSSL 3.0.0 compatibility

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

On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 08:48, Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> * On 2021-09-30 at 01:03 BST, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> >  I don't see wip/openssl at 3.0.0, which is how most people would build
> >  a not-yet-in-pkgsrc version, together with some variable  to force
> >  pkgsrc openssl after it's installed, and a note explaining that, so
> >  they too can play the "catch up with API breaks" game.
>
> Until we move to a proper mk/ssl.buildlink3.mk there's little point
> having a wip/openssl as security/openssl is hardcoded in hundreds of
> places.

Is it worth someone doing a pass to add mk/ssl.buildlink3.mk first?

That would get a large rototill which _should_ not break any builds
out of the way first, then make it easier to test switching openssl
versions.

Related - is there any sense in planning to allow openssl3 to install
to a different location to openssl1 so they can both be installed on
the same system? (I understand that may open up more cans of worms
than it solves)

David