Hello Dan,
Is it possible to implement Martin's suggestion?
Best regards,
Kern
On 03/09/2018 06:05 PM, Dan Langille wrote:
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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
