cvs commit: ports/security/openssl-beta Makefile
DougB at FreeBSD.org
Wed Apr 16 23:11:00 PDT 2003
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:04:10PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 07:44:05AM -0700, Dirk Meyer wrote:
> > > dinoex 2003/04/16 07:44:05 PDT
> > >
> > > FreeBSD ports repository
> > >
> > > Modified files:
> > > security/openssl-beta Makefile
> > > Log:
> > > - ### HEAD UP ### SHLIBVER has been bumped back.
> > > - honor OPENSSH_SHLIBVER if set by user.
> > Whoa there..you can't do this without creating all sorts of problems
> > for users.
> It's (something like) this, or screw all ports users the next time the
> OpenSSL ABI changes. Whether OpenSSL 0.9.6 is installed from the base
> system or ports, it should use shared library version 2. Whether
> OpenSSL 0.9.7 is installed from the base system or ports, it should
> use shared library version 3.
> Because these were out-of-sync previously, some
> OpenSSL-from-ports-using folks were hosed when OpenSSL 0.9.7 was
> imported (they had to recompile OpenSSL-using ports).
I agree with Jacques and Dirk here. Bumping the lib version in the port
was a mistake that has caused our users grief, and has the potential to
keep doing so in the future. I get two or three messages related to this
problem and bind 9's usage of openssl a week, and I know that the bind 9
issue is very low profile compared to other, related problems.
It's a painful thing to do, but it's a little pain now, and get it over
with, or more and more down the road.
This .signature sanitized for your protection
More information about the cvs-all