> On Feb 9, 2018, at 1:34 PM, Martin Simmons <mar...@lispworks.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 20:33:49 -0500, Dan Langille said: >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Martin Simmons <mar...@lispworks.com> wrote: >>> >>> It looks like LibreSSL defines OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER as 0x20000000L, i.e. >>> as >>> if it was OpenSSL 2.0. Bacula uses this variable to detect OpenSSL >= 1.1, >>> which causes it to compile the 1.1 code when using LibreSSL, even though >>> LibreSSL only claims to provide the API from OpenSSL 1.0. >>> >>> Bacula probably needs to detect LibreSSL (e.g. look for >>> LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER) and treat that as OpenSSL 1.0 regardless of >>> OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER. >> >> This seems to fit closely with a patch provided to FreeBSD: >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223994 >> >> I could file a bug and pass this directly to the Bacula project, and in the >> meantime, patch the FreeBSD port. >> >> Both will take time and I'm preoccupied with conferences just now. > > That patch looks incomplete though (there are a few other uses of > OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER).
New patches have been uploaded to https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223994 Does that look better? -- Dan Langille - BSDCan / PGCon d...@langille.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
