Really, what I'm asking is whether there's any functionality you would associate with an openssl.so module, or if it's just to make sure the library is loaded. If there's no functionality, then the normal shared library facility should be fine.
I've used this technique on IRIX, Mac OS X, several versions of Solaris, and a couple of versions of RedHat Linux. Of those, the only one that came with OpenSSL as a part of the OS distribution was Mac OS X. I didn't need any changes to the nsopenssl Makefiles, nor the AOLserver Makefiles. When you build OpenSSL, configure it with "shared" or "threads" and it will build shared libraries. It seems to me that we should be configuring OpenSSL with "threads" anyway, so this shouldn't be a change. Putting the OpenSSL shared libs (libcrypto.so and libssl.so) in the AOLserver bin directory is not enough. The libraries do need to be somewhere the system will search for shared libraries, so you either need to include the directory in which the libraries reside in the LD_LIBRARY_PATH, or provide the directory as a load search hint by adding a "-R" argument to LDFLAGS (assuming your compiler supports "-R"). For example, "-R /usr/local/ssl/lib" might be what you need. I haven't used nsencrypt nor nsimap, so I don't know if the build procedures for them require changes. When you say you don't use any code that's installed with the OS, do you include C runtime libraries with that? On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Scott Goodwin wrote: > I have zero experience with shared libs, other than understanding what > they're for. Seems like you already have it working this way, so I'll > try it out. If you could, please send me any changes you made to the > Makefile to do this. Putting openssl.so into AOLserver's /bin directory > might eliminate the requirement to update LD_LIBRARY_PATH. > > We don't use any code that's installed with the OS. All of our > production binaries are compiled from scratched into a specific area so > we know exactly what's being used, and so an OS upgrade from, say, RH > 7.2 to 7.3 doesn't break something for us. > > /s. > > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 08:39:57 -0400, "Peter M. Jansson" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Scott Goodwin wrote: > > > > > it's time to break OpenSSL into its own openssl.so module, and have it > > > > If you build OpenSSL as a shared lib, and the build procedures for > > the AOLserver modules are friendly to that practice, do we really need > > an > > OpenSSL module? What would it do? > > > > Last time I built nsopenssl.so, I did it that way, and I've had no > > problems other than that you may have to adjust the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to > > include the place the OpenSSL shared libraries. > > > > Pete. > > > > -- > Scott Goodwin > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scottg.net >
