It breaks build with USE=libressl at least. Please: !libressl? ( dev-libs/openssl:0= ) libressl? ( dev-libs/libressl:0= ) See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:LibreSSL
Hey, I don't have a libressl env ready (TODO for me to convert my dev env to it), so could you please tell me whether libressl works if you add the deps as you suggest? This is the reason I didn't add it yet, so any feedback on whether it works would be very much appreciated!
It works perfectly well. And it is safe for openssl users to add a libressl flag even if wouldn't build with LibreSSL.
(In reply to Stefan Strogin from comment #2) > It works perfectly well. Great! In the meanwhile I've built a libressl system and confirmed this myself. > And it is safe for openssl users to add a libressl > flag even if wouldn't build with LibreSSL. I don't quite get this.
Created attachment 578964 [details] app-portage/portage-utils-0.80_pre20190530
I can confirm it builds fine against dev-libs/libressl-2.9.2 with `env MAKEOPTS="-j1" emerge -av --nodeps app-portage/portage-utils` (building with `MAKEOPTS="-j1"` to make the build log easier to read, it builds fine without this). With `FEATURES="test"` enabled all of the tests pass. How can I test the functionality that depends on openssl? Is this covered by the test suite that's run with `make check`? I've attached the build log in case it's useful (if not feel free to ignore it).
> I don't quite get this. Well, a conditional dependency on libressl does not affect openssl users in any way. I think if a package foobar gets a new dependency on libcrypto.so or libssl.so, then the foobar maintainer could add right away: !libressl? ( dev-libs/openssl:0= ) libressl? ( dev-libs/libressl:0= ) without knowing if foobar builds successfully with libressl. If foobar is broken with libressl there will be a bug report about it. But with a new _unconditional_ dependency on openssl, foobar will be broken for libressl users anyway.
(In reply to Stefan Strogin from comment #6) > > I don't quite get this. > > Well, a conditional dependency on libressl does not affect openssl users in > any way. I think if a package foobar gets a new dependency on libcrypto.so > or libssl.so, then the foobar maintainer could add right away: > > !libressl? ( dev-libs/openssl:0= ) > libressl? ( dev-libs/libressl:0= ) > > without knowing if foobar builds successfully with libressl. If foobar is > broken with libressl there will be a bug report about it. But with a new > _unconditional_ dependency on openssl, foobar will be broken for libressl > users anyway. Yes, but what I'm mostly concerned about, of course, is whether the code compiles with libressl. I've tested this, and it does, and it runs, qmanifest is the one consumer for this.
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=aba4a67be6bd97dcbb9b6fdeb61c25cefba48e86 commit aba4a67be6bd97dcbb9b6fdeb61c25cefba48e86 Author: Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2019-06-06 07:26:17 +0000 Commit: Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2019-06-06 07:27:05 +0000 app-portage/portage-utils: version bump 0.80 pre Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/687416 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/687374 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/687372 Signed-off-by: Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.66, Repoman-2.3.11 app-portage/portage-utils/Manifest | 2 +- ...ls-0.80_pre20190530.ebuild => portage-utils-0.80_pre20190605.ebuild} | 0 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Additionally, it has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=3c6e9432801aa6ac3223a5f1f8da7fd7e0575071 commit 3c6e9432801aa6ac3223a5f1f8da7fd7e0575071 Author: Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2019-06-06 06:57:19 +0000 Commit: Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2019-06-06 07:27:05 +0000 app-portage/portage-utils: support LibreSSL Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/687372 Signed-off-by: Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.66, Repoman-2.3.11 app-portage/portage-utils/portage-utils-0.80_pre20190530.ebuild | 5 +++-- app-portage/portage-utils/portage-utils-9999.ebuild | 5 +++-- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
