Re: [openssl-users] openssl 1.0.2g build fails with 'no-comp' or 'no-comp no-bio' configure options?

2016-03-10 Thread PGNet Dev
My read of "no-comp Disables compression independent of zlib. OPENSSL_NO_COMP will be defined in the OpenSSL headers." is that this disables compression methods OTHER than zlib. Is the intent, instead, that it disables ALL compression, REGARDLESS of the presence/setting of zlib? This

Re: [openssl-users] openssl 1.0.2g build fails with 'no-comp' or 'no-comp no-bio' configure options?

2016-03-10 Thread Jeffrey Walton
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:04 PM, PGNet Dev wrote: > I'm building openssl 1.0.2g on linux64 > > With my usual > > ./config ... > > I end up with a successful build/install > > openssl version > OpenSSL 1.0.2g 1 Mar 2016 > > If I add > >

Re: [openssl-users] openssl 1.0.2g build fails with 'no-comp' or 'no-comp no-bio' configure options?

2016-03-10 Thread PGNet Dev
On 03/10/2016 10:19 AM, PGNetwork Dev wrote: ./config no-comp ... subsequent 'make' fails make ... enc.c:(.text+0x1253): undefined reference to `BIO_f_zlib' Adding one or both of no-zlib no-zlib-dynamic should handle that. My read of

Re: [openssl-users] openssl 1.0.2g build fails with 'no-comp' or 'no-comp no-bio' configure options?

2016-03-10 Thread Jeremy Farrell
On 10/03/2016 17:04, PGNet Dev wrote: I'm building openssl 1.0.2g on linux64 With my usual ./config ... I end up with a successful build/install ... If I add ./config no-comp ... subsequent 'make' fails make ... enc.c:(.text+0x1253): undefined reference to

[openssl-users] openssl 1.0.2g build fails with 'no-comp' or 'no-comp no-bio' configure options?

2016-03-10 Thread PGNet Dev
I'm building openssl 1.0.2g on linux64 With my usual ./config ... I end up with a successful build/install openssl version OpenSSL 1.0.2g 1 Mar 2016 If I add ./config no-comp ... subsequent 'make' fails make ...