Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL and RPATH's (was: Cannot find SSL_CTX_get0_param in libssl library)

> RPATHs have advantages, but they have some major issues, too. For > instance, if for whatever reason you need to move files around so that > things are stored in a different location, suddenly you'll need to > recompile everything -- because the RPATH is a hardcoded location of the > library in

Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL and RPATH's

On 31-05-17 17:11, PGNet Dev wrote: > On 5/31/17 3:16 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> On 30-05-17 18:12, PGNet Dev wrote: >> [...] >>> with lots of apps still not at all v110 >>> compatible, or at best broken in their attempts, having local builds of >>> both v110x and v102x is extremely useful --

Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL and RPATH's

> From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf > Of PGNet Dev > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 11:12 > > And, IMO, that's just bad advice. RPATH is perfectly fine, and this^ is > exactly > what it exists for. Feel free to use it or not, but don't FUD perfectly >

Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL and RPATH's

On 5/31/17 3:16 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On 30-05-17 18:12, PGNet Dev wrote: > [...] >> with lots of apps still not at all v110 >> compatible, or at best broken in their attempts, having local builds of >> both v110x and v102x is extremely useful -- and RPATH'ing makes that >> trivially

Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL and RPATH's

> On May 31, 2017, at 6:16 AM, Wouter Verhelst > wrote: > > RPATH is useful if the SONAME is the same but the libraries aren't, for > whatever reason (e.g., local patches). Other than that, you don't need > it, and it's generally a bad idea. There's no need to take

Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL and RPATH's

On 30-05-17 18:12, PGNet Dev wrote: [...] > with lots of apps still not at all v110 > compatible, or at best broken in their attempts, having local builds of > both v110x and v102x is extremely useful -- and RPATH'ing makes that > trivially manageable. That's exactly my point -- you don't need to

Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL and RPATH's

The only reason why you would ever want to use RPATH with OpenSSL is because you need to install a particular old version of libssl (or libcrypto) that has the same SONAME as the system-default, but where you don't want to use that system-default one -- but why would you want to do that? Security

Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL and RPATH's (was: Cannot find SSL_CTX_get0_param in libssl library)

On 29/05/2017 16:39, Wouter Verhelst wrote: ... The only reason why you would ever want to use RPATH with OpenSSL is because you need to install a particular old version of libssl (or libcrypto) that has the same SONAME as the system-default, but where you don't want to use that system-default

Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL and RPATH's (was: Cannot find SSL_CTX_get0_param in libssl library)

> From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf > Of Wouter Verhelst > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 10:40 > > RPATHs have advantages, but they have some major issues, too. For > instance, if for whatever reason you need to move files around so that > things are stored in

Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL and RPATH's (was: Cannot find SSL_CTX_get0_param in libssl library)

On 28-05-17 23:51, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > So what are the problems here that need to be addressed? I think I > know some of them: > > 1. Build OpenSSL with an RPATH if installed in non-system location > 2. Build user program with an RPATH if OpenSSL installed in non-system > location > 3.

[openssl-users] OpenSSL and RPATH's (was: Cannot find SSL_CTX_get0_param in libssl library)

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Salz, Rich wrote: >> The openssl program will use the wrong libssl.so and libcrypto.so. > > Yes, got it. > > But that's small potatoes compared to everyone else finding the wrong shared > library, and just saying "use rpath" doesn't help all