Hello, On 10 June 2015 at 21:37, 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? >
There is certainly one issue to be aware of. When you link dynamically with libssl then your distribution is responsible for updating libssl in response to libssl vulnerabilities. When you link statically with libssl you are responsible yourself for producing an updated build every time a security fix is applied to libssl regardless of any (lack of) changes in the fossil code. Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
