At 12:14 Uhr -0400 21.10.2002, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:
On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 09:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:This is in fact not a question, it's a must. Binaries must be identical in all cases! It would not be acceptable that they would differe depending on whether openssl or system-openssl is installed.
Perhaps we should make our system-openssl package symlink all the openssl libs (and headers?) into %p, and then have dependent packages build against those? That way, the Fink and system-openssl packages would be truly replaceable. It would sort of suck if someone did 'fink install openssl; fink install someCryptoPackage; fink install system-openssl' and had someCryptoPackage break because its binaries link against /sw/lib/libssl.dylib which now no longer exists.There still remains Justin's suggestion, however: should we create a system-openssl package (for the crypto tree) which will let users use the Apple-provided openssl instead of the Fink-provided one?
Max
--
-----------------------------------------------
Max Horn
Software Developer
email: <mailto:max@;quendi.de>
phone: (+49) 6151-494890
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net emial is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4699841;7576298;k?http://www.sun.com/javavote
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
