On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote:

> On 6/10/15, Eric Rubin-Smith <eas....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/10/15, Eric Rubin-Smith <eas....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > If you are worried that some people don't want the bloat of openssl in
> >> > their base fossil, perhaps provide both options on the site?
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's not a question of bloat, its a question of whether or not we
> >> require the user to have previously done "apt-get install openssl
> >> libssl" (or whatever other magic incantation is required to get the
> >> right shared libraries running).
> >>
> >
> > I guess I had assumed you could bake it in statically.  Is that a
> > non-option for yall?
> >
> Can you send me the apt-get command for installing the necessary
> static libraries?

I believe you should be able to say:

# apt-get install libssl-dev

yielding /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libssl.a and libcrypto.a on my arch.

This came up before.  Seems like somebody said that there are issues
> with openssl that prevent it from being statically linked.  But I
> don't recall the details.

I've been building my own openssl and statically linking it into programs
running on little things like home routers for around a year now.  I assume
you don't want to fiddle with building your own openssl, but I'm happy to
share my makefile magic if so.

I also don't know whether a static build has any legal/licensing
implications on fossil that you'd find undesirable.

fossil-users mailing list

Reply via email to