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