make of archivers/libarchive fails with unsupported ssl provider openssl

[Alain De Vos]

make: "/usr/ports/Mk/Uses/ssl.mk" line 97: You are using an unsupported SSL provider openssl
portmaster -a fails with the error above.
I'm using openssl111
Make.conf contains : DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= ssl=openssl

 

[Alain De Vos]

With :
DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= ssl=openssl111
it compiles.
It seems there is a minor inconsistency.

 

[SirDice]

20200101:
	  AFFECTS: users of security/openssl and security/openssl111
 	  AUTHOR: brnrd@FreeBSD.org
 	
 	  The openssl port was removed on 2019-12-31, subsequently the openssl111
 	  port was renamed to openssl on 2020-01-01.
 	
 	  The shared library version of OpenSSL has been bumped.
 	
 	  Users of DEFAULT_VERSIONS= ssl=openssl111 must update this to
 	  ssl=openssl. 
 	
 	  You must rebuild all ports that depend on OpenSSL if you use OpenSSL
 	  from ports.

 

[Alain De Vos]

I wrote it does not work with DEFAULT_VERSIONS= ssl=openssl but it works with DEFAULT_VERSIONS= ssl=openssl111.
As opposed to /usr/ports/UPDATING

 

[SirDice]

I wrote it does not work with DEFAULT_VERSIONS= ssl=openssl but it works with DEFAULT_VERSIONS= ssl=openssl111.

Did you update your ports tree?

 

[Alain De Vos]

On 4 januari I did a ,
rm -vfR /usr/ports/.?*
rm -vfR /usr/ports/*
svn checkout https://svn.freebsd.org/ports/branches/2020Q1/ /usr/ports
I can try a checkout later today.

 

[SirDice]

You're on a quarterly branch. The OpenSSL change happened after 2020Q1 was branched off, and is thus only relevant for HEAD (aka latest). If you look at your version of /usr/ports/UPDATING you will notice an absence of the OpenSSL changes.

 

[Alain De Vos]

Aha, I must have been confused by information belonging to quaterly and information only relevant for head, and their difference

PS : /usr/ports/UPDATING in quarterly does not contain make.conf related information to openssl default versions,
but with DEFAULT_VERSIONS= ssl=openssl111 , everything compiles fine for quarterly.

 

[SirDice]

I must have been confused by information belonging to quaterly and information only relevant for head, and their difference

That's understandable, I often forget about the differences too.

 

[chrcol]

This is one of those things that comes under silly.

I moved to openssl111 before end of year to avoid this situation when 1.0 expired, and then they make this change to force all openssl ports to be rebuilt anyway. On top of this it is not actually just a rebuild either, because its also a ports dependency change, which requires additional commands not listed in the UPDATING document. This is horrific ports management.

I feel the dev teams need to prioritise the user convenience over their own convenience, and as such the openssl111 port should have survived.

I would have suggested if I was asked, that the openssl port itself would be abandoned and all future ports use the versioning scheme to allow the names to stay static, that would have been far more sensible, a bit like how e.g. is ruby26 ruby27 ruby28 etc. but no ruby.

 

[SirDice]

and as such the openssl111 port should have survived.

It still does, it's only been renamed.