Policy on static linking ?

Jean-Yves Avenard 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:
> Hi
> On 15 January 2011 23:48, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles at stack.nl> wrote:
>> The approach has been used by Debian for some time.
>> Links:
>> http://chris.dzombak.name/blog/2010/03/building-openssl-with-symbol-versioning/
>> http://chris.dzombak.name/files/openssl/openssl-0.9.8l-symbolVersioning.diff
>> http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=1222&user=guest&pass=guest
> 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
> differently?

Replying to myself..

Looking at the symbols in the openssl libraries found on a Ubuntu
machine, I see what is going on:

symbol name:
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 mailing list