Bug 232955

Summary: dns/ldns: OpenSSL and options
Product: Ports & Packages Reporter: Bernard Spil <brnrd>
Component: Individual Port(s)Assignee: freebsd-ports-bugs mailing list <ports-bugs>
Status: New ---    
Severity: Affects Only Me CC: jaap, w.schwarzenfeld
Priority: --- Flags: bugzilla: maintainer-feedback? (jaap)
Version: Latest   
Hardware: Any   
OS: Any   
Attachments:
Description Flags
svn diff for dns/ldns none

Description Bernard Spil freebsd_committer 2018-11-04 11:25:52 UTC
Created attachment 198933 [details]
svn diff for dns/ldns

Hi Jaap,

The security/openssl-devel port was just removed from the ports tree, ports should use security/openssl111 instead.

Working through updating all references to openssl-devel I also came upon security/ldns which I believe needs more updating than just s/openssl-devel/openssl111/

For FreeBSD 12 and head (OSVERSION>=1200085) OpenSSL 1.1 is in base.
For 12 base, ldns was changed to no longer use GOST but use DANETA instead.

Added a patch that I'm not really happy with (DragonFly support?)
Comment 1 Jaap Akkerhuis 2018-11-07 18:48:44 UTC
Openssl (in port and base) seems in a state of flux lately. I was waiting on the dust to settle. I will take a look at this (and similar ports using openssl I maintain) a soon as possible.

(PS. It is also delayed because my machines with the various poudriere jails to test broke doen).
Comment 2 w.schwarzenfeld freebsd_triage 2019-02-06 11:50:33 UTC
ping!
Comment 3 Jaap Akkerhuis 2019-02-07 09:17:49 UTC
(In reply to w.schwarzenfeld from comment #2)
Pong :-)

Apologies, circumstances made me forget about this, I will get to this ASAP. Hopefully sometime today.
Comment 4 Jaap Akkerhuis 2019-02-09 14:28:13 UTC
(In reply to Bernard Spil from comment #0)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The DANE is completely unrelated to GOST, they are different beasts.

Currently the port builds as expected on the supported versions of FreeBSD. The 11.2 base openssl is 1.0.2 and that doesn't support DANE but I cannot change that. As far as I can tell the proposed patch isn't needed.

But maybe I don't understand the problem you see, so am interested in more details.