Just finished digging around and found this information...
libssl.version shows 0.9.6-1
/usr/lib contains these libraries, all from libssl.lrp
libcrypto.so
libcrypto.so.0
libcrypto.so.0.9.6
libssl.so
libssl.so.0
libssl.so.0.9.6
I am still getting the message:
zebra: error in loading shared libraries
libcrypto.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
It seems that I am beginning to catch on. Zebra is looking for a newer
version of libcrypto than what is being provided by libssl.lrp. So, that
leaves me with two options;
[1] build an updated libssl.lrp
[2] compile my zebra package with libcrypto statically linked
Michael suggested number [2], would anyone else care to voice an opinion on
this? Does anyone else even see the need to have an updated libssl package?
Just trying to gain a consensus and possibly some guidance before moving
forward. Personally, I would like to eventually see ssh and zebra not using
statically linked libraries. That is, of course, unless I can show that
using the static libraries on zebra and ssl work out to take up less space
than zebra+ssh+ssl packages.
Respectfully,
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael D.
Schleif
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 12:09 AM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [leaf-devel] RE: Bering - included libraries
Eric B Kiser wrote:
>
> I am using David's zebra.lrp package and trying to get it to run on
> Bering_1.0-rc3. I wanted to check out what he did before I got started on
> mine. I will, however, be using UML_slink to do my compiling.
>
> You bring up an interesting question regarding ssh having the libraries
> statically linked. I expect to have both ssh and zebra running on the same
> system. Would it be better to use the libssl as suggested by H. D. Lee.
That
> is, assuming that there is an ssh.lrp without libcrypto statically linked.
> Strictly for the purpose of conserving space.
I do not know which version is David's libssl.lrp -- it is big. I am
sure that it is several versions behind the most current openssl-0.9.6g,
which I use in my openssh packages.
As you know, the recent linux worm hoopla is aided and abetted by older
versions of openssl. How much of this affects zebra, I do not know.
Due to the enormous size of openssl, and also to the limited need for it
across a wide gamut of leaf packages, static linking openssl libraries
into other packages appears to be the norm.
Everytime that I have poo-poo'd size constraints -- I use dcd -- I am
reminded that a large portion of our audience is constrained by floppy
sizes.
Everything developed for this project is based on well thought out trade
offs. Zebra will be no different.
> Along this same line of thought, does anyone know whether it would cause
> problems to use ssh.lrp with the statically linked libcrypto on the same
> system as using libssl.lrp. I am in unfamiliar terrain here so any help is
> appreciated.
No problem.
I have been meaning to do the zebra thingy for over a year. Obviously,
the need has not been great enough to coax me into it.
I wish you good fortune in this endeavor and am anxious to play with the
results. If I can help, please, let me know . . .
<snip />
--
Best Regards,
mds
mds resource
888.250.3987
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we
think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
