On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote:
> On 6/10/15, Eric Rubin-Smith <eas....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > > > >> On 6/10/15, Eric Rubin-Smith <eas....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > If you are worried that some people don't want the bloat of openssl in > >> > their base fossil, perhaps provide both options on the site? > >> > > >> > >> It's not a question of bloat, its a question of whether or not we > >> require the user to have previously done "apt-get install openssl > >> libssl" (or whatever other magic incantation is required to get the > >> right shared libraries running). > >> > > > > I guess I had assumed you could bake it in statically. Is that a > > non-option for yall? > > > > Can you send me the apt-get command for installing the necessary > static libraries? > I believe you should be able to say: # apt-get install libssl-dev yielding /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libssl.a and libcrypto.a on my arch. This came up before. Seems like somebody said that there are issues > with openssl that prevent it from being statically linked. But I > don't recall the details. > I've been building my own openssl and statically linking it into programs running on little things like home routers for around a year now. I assume you don't want to fiddle with building your own openssl, but I'm happy to share my makefile magic if so. I also don't know whether a static build has any legal/licensing implications on fossil that you'd find undesirable. Eric
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
