On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 at 23:23, David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@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
It is supposed to also allow switching in other SSL implementations
(which are mostly not api-compatible, so i'm guessing not...)?
If not, can you call it openssl.mk instead of ssl.mk to avoid confusion?
I think a longer term plan might be for it to also hold the common
logic for choosing between different SSL implementations where
packages support that - something along an SSL_SUPPORTED=
On the other hand you could argue that _that_ would go into an
ssl.buildlink3.mk and any package which only supports openssl just
uses openssl.buildlink3.mk, which I'm happy with
So... anyone have any objections to me making it openssl.buildlink3.mk instead?