Bug 198889

Summary: [MAINTAINER] net/hostapd: Update to 2.4 and add PORTS_SSL option
Product: Ports & Packages Reporter: Craig Leres <leres>
Component: Individual Port(s)Assignee: John Marino <marino>
Status: Closed FIXED    
Severity: Affects Only Me CC: marino
Priority: ---    
Version: Latest   
Hardware: Any   
OS: Any   
Description Flags
Patchset for net/hostapd
Patchset for net/hostapd
leres: maintainer-approval+
poudriere log for net/hostapd
Patchset for net/hostapd
leres: maintainer-approval+
updated poudriere log none

Description Craig Leres freebsd_committer 2015-03-25 01:14:42 UTC
Created attachment 154786 [details]
Patchset for net/hostapd

Update net/hostapd to 2.4.

Make base/ports SSL configuration explicit by adding a PORTS_SSL option.
Comment 1 Craig Leres freebsd_committer 2015-03-25 01:19:01 UTC
Created attachment 154787 [details]
Patchset for net/hostapd
Comment 2 Craig Leres freebsd_committer 2015-03-25 01:20:28 UTC
Created attachment 154788 [details]
poudriere log for net/hostapd
Comment 3 John Marino freebsd_committer 2015-03-27 15:27:57 UTC
Did you used <bsd.port.pre.mk> over <bsd.options.mk> intentionally?  if so, was it to expose a variable?
Comment 4 Craig Leres freebsd_committer 2015-03-27 17:42:47 UTC
(In reply to John Marino from comment #3)
No, I copied it from a bad example. Stand by for new uploads.
Comment 5 Craig Leres freebsd_committer 2015-03-27 17:44:37 UTC
Created attachment 154871 [details]
Patchset for net/hostapd

Revised patchset
Comment 6 Craig Leres freebsd_committer 2015-03-27 17:46:51 UTC
Created attachment 154872 [details]
updated poudriere log
Comment 7 commit-hook freebsd_committer 2015-03-29 12:16:39 UTC
A commit references this bug:

Author: marino
Date: Sun Mar 29 12:15:41 UTC 2015
New revision: 382595
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/382595

  net/hostapd: Upgrade version 2.3 => 2.4, add PORTS_SSL option

  PR:		198889
  Submitted by:	maintainer (leres - ee.lbl.gov)

Comment 8 John Marino freebsd_committer 2015-03-29 12:22:14 UTC
Nice job, thanks!
Comment 9 John Marino freebsd_committer 2015-03-29 16:52:01 UTC
mat thinks the openssl handling is too complex and can be done simpler:

Please update the PR accordingly if you agree.
Comment 10 Craig Leres freebsd_committer 2015-03-29 22:57:41 UTC
> That seems way overly complicated, why not just do:
> .if defined(WITH_OPENSSL_PORT)
> CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --with-ssl-dir=${PREFIX}
> .endif

That looks like a nice way to insure a port uses the base/ports version of openssl at the time its package is built.

The problem I'm trying to solve is if I've decided to use the ports version of openssl, I want to eliminate the possibility that if I accidently build a port when the openssl port *isn't* installed, it will use the base openssl.

Does that make sense?

A possibly optimization to the way I've implemented this might be to set:


instead of setting the IGNORE if the port isn't installed.
Comment 11 John Marino freebsd_committer 2015-03-30 06:11:17 UTC
> does that make sense?

no, not really.
if WITH_OPENSSL_PORT is set, it's probably set by /etc/make.conf, meaning all ports are going to use the base version.

I agree with mat on two things:
1) This is probably overthinking
2) This is geared for building on live systems instead of binary packages.  You should be focusing on the latter (i.e. building in poudriere clean jail) because live system building is just about deprecated given all the problems that can arise.
Comment 12 John Marino freebsd_committer 2015-03-30 06:12:12 UTC
(In reply to John Marino from comment #11)
"meaning all ports are going to use the base version."


"meaning all ports are going to use the selected version (either all base or all port)"