port:libressl vs port:openssl, path-style variants and prebuilt binaries

[Lawrence Velázquez]

> On Nov 22, 2016, at 4:54 AM, Mojca Miklavec <mojca at macports.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 21 November 2016 at 14:23, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>> 
>> Is there anything currently in MacPorts that avoids issues that will
>> probably arise when you install libressl and then pull in a prebuilt
>> binary that will supposedly be built against openssl?

Not really.

>> Idem for the classical use of path:-style dependency declarations
>> where they allow to install a -devel port. The standard and -devel
>> port may not provide a 100% compatible ABI; is it purely up to the
>> port maintainer to ensure that this never leads to issues with
>> binary builds (and for the user's responsibility if it does)?
> 
> According to my understanding, ports that depend on either of multiple
> ABI-incompatible libraries should use variants to pick one or the
> other, path-style is just the wrong workaround/shortcut (I don't know
> if  openssl/libressl are ABI-incompatible, I'm just taking your word
> for it, but if they are, the same holds for those two).

This is correct, but path-style dependencies are often abused in an
attempt to avoid proliferation of variants. This should generally be
avoided.

vq