Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list] 
Message-ID: <4042D476.9050401@tls.msk.ru>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 09:13:10 +0300
From: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
To: xvendor@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: OpenSSL soname

Solar Designer wrote:
...
[2 openssl soname naming schemes - libssl.so.N vs libssl.so.X.Y.Z]

> It doesn't appear that we can be binary-compatible with application
> software packages built for both Red Hat Linux and official OpenSSL.
> So we have to choose one of those (either make it *.4 or *.0.9.7).

The above does not seems to be true.  That is, it is very simple
to support both schemes, by providing both RH-style libssl.so.N
and openssl-style libssl.so.X.Y.Z libraries, where libssl.so.N is
a symlink to libssl.so.X.Y.Z, since both are really the same (not
just "compatbile", but exactly the same).  This looks a bit messy,
and may break if openssl folks descides to use redhat-style naming
scheme after 1.0 release (as their libssl.so.1 will definitely NOT
be compatible with redhat libssl.so.1 which correspond to 0.9.6.

Either way, the question remains open - someone (either redhat or
the rest of the world ;) should change naming scheme at some point.

/mjt

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Please check out the xvendor mailing list charter.