Re: [macports-ports] branch master updated: mosh: 1.3.0, switch to CommonCrypto

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [macports-ports] branch master updated: mosh: 1.3.0, switch to CommonCrypto

Ryan Schmidt-24

> On Mar 31, 2017, at 16:37, Clemens Lang <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Clemens Lang (neverpanic) pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository macports-ports.
>
>
> https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/216bfe002ea78203d6ad4bfd19926147a95637d3
>
> The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
>
>      new 216bfe0  mosh: 1.3.0, switch to CommonCrypto
>
> 216bfe0 is described below
>
>
> commit 216bfe002ea78203d6ad4bfd19926147a95637d3
>
> Author: Clemens Lang <[hidden email]>
> AuthorDate: Thu Mar 30 21:46:08 2017 +0200
>
>
>     mosh: 1.3.0, switch to CommonCrypto
>
>    
>
>     Update to 1.3.0 and switch back to CommonCrypto, dropping the OpenSSL
>
>     dependency now that older systems should work with CommonCrypto with
>
>       https://trac.macports.org/ticket/52222
>
>     fixed upstream.
>
>    
>
>     This reverts commit fbcb8396fcf918f4fdf0da2519ed259e724d192f.
>
>    
>
>     Closes: https://trac.macports.org/ticket/53870
>
>     See: https://trac.macports.org/ticket/52222

Mountain Lion works with CommonCrypto, but Lion and earlier now fails with:

configure: error: Apple Common Crypto header not found

The previous version of the port was still building successfully on Leopard and later. We may not care about systems so old anymore, but I wanted to make sure we were making this decision deliberately.

The port could use openssl on Lion and earlier and CommonCrypto on Mountain Lion and later, if CommonCrypto is really better than openssl.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [macports-ports] branch master updated: mosh: 1.3.0, switch to CommonCrypto

Clemens Lang-2
Hi,

On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 12:48:08PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Mountain Lion works with CommonCrypto, but Lion and earlier now fails
> with:
>
> configure: error: Apple Common Crypto header not found
>
> The previous version of the port was still building successfully on
> Leopard and later. We may not care about systems so old anymore, but I
> wanted to make sure we were making this decision deliberately.

I made the decision deliberately. I do not actively support these old
platforms. I removed the OpenSSL dependency to avoid the dependency and
use a more modern crypto lib.


> The port could use openssl on Lion and earlier and CommonCrypto on
> Mountain Lion and later, if CommonCrypto is really better than
> openssl.

I'd welcome a patch from somebody who cares about systems that old.

--
Clemens
db
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [macports-ports] branch master updated: mosh: 1.3.0, switch to CommonCrypto

db
On 2 Apr 2017, at 20:42, Clemens Lang <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 12:48:08PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> The previous version of the port was still building successfully on
>> Leopard and later. We may not care about systems so old anymore, but I
>> wanted to make sure we were making this decision deliberately.
> I made the decision deliberately. I do not actively support these old
> platforms. I removed the OpenSSL dependency to avoid the dependency and
> use a more modern crypto lib.
>> The port could use openssl on Lion and earlier and CommonCrypto on
>> Mountain Lion and later, if CommonCrypto is really better than
>> openssl.

I just gave it a spin: mosh 1.3.0 with openssl builds on 10.8.5 (in the 1.2.6 portfile change version, delete revision, change the checksums). I don't know of ≤10.7 though.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [macports-ports] branch master updated: mosh: 1.3.0, switch to CommonCrypto

Kenneth F. Cunningham
so this sorta gets back to your question about support for older systems, and is a pretty typical example of same.

sounds like you could write up an openssl variant for it, default to that variant on suitable systems, and nobody would likely complain about that. But you might have to do it and submit the PR.

K


On 2017-04-03, at 8:05 AM, db wrote:

> On 2 Apr 2017, at 20:42, Clemens Lang <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 12:48:08PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> The previous version of the port was still building successfully on
>>> Leopard and later. We may not care about systems so old anymore, but I
>>> wanted to make sure we were making this decision deliberately.
>> I made the decision deliberately. I do not actively support these old
>> platforms. I removed the OpenSSL dependency to avoid the dependency and
>> use a more modern crypto lib.
>>> The port could use openssl on Lion and earlier and CommonCrypto on
>>> Mountain Lion and later, if CommonCrypto is really better than
>>> openssl.
>
> I just gave it a spin: mosh 1.3.0 with openssl builds on 10.8.5 (in the 1.2.6 portfile change version, delete revision, change the checksums). I don't know of ≤10.7 though.
>

db
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [macports-ports] branch master updated: mosh: 1.3.0, switch to CommonCrypto

db
On 3 Apr 2017, at 17:52, Ken Cunningham <[hidden email]> wrote:
> so this sorta gets back to your question about support for older systems, and is a pretty typical example of same.
> sounds like you could write up an openssl variant for it, default to that variant on suitable systems, and nobody would likely complain about that. But you might have to do it and submit the PR.

Yes, I certainly would, had I older systems set up. But I have not — so this was just a hint, in case someone opens a ticket for mosh not compiling with commoncrypto on older systems, for them to try. Now, is commoncrypto that modern or better than openssl (which is mosh's default lib)? Well, I cannot judge with expertise and deem this as peremptory.
Loading...