Policy on static linking ?
jyavenard at gmail.com
Sun Jan 16 01:25:19 UTC 2011
On 16 January 2011 02:17, Jean-Yves Avenard <jyavenard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 January 2011 23:48, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles at stack.nl> wrote:
>> The approach has been used by Debian for some time.
> This sounds very interesting.
> I do have trouble understanding on how this would make a difference
> with how it's currently working.
> base openssl uses libssl.so.6 and libcrypto.so.6
> current port openssl is using .so.7
> So they too have different sonames; How could changing this to
> .so.0.9.8 for base and so.1.0.2 for port make things behave
Replying to myself..
Looking at the symbols in the openssl libraries found on a Ubuntu
machine, I see what is going on:
X509_NAME_cmp at OPENSSL_0.9.8 vs X509_NAME_cmp
This sounds like a great approach.. and should definitely resolve my
problems I think.
Are you sure both base and port needs to be patched?
I would have assumed that patching only port would be sufficient
(provided all tools depending on it are also recompiled)
More information about the freebsd-stable