> On Nov 9, 2015, at 17:31, René J.V. Bertin <rjvber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday November 09 2015 16:11:54 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > > hi, > >>> Now what if you do >>> >>> %> ln -s libssl.35.dylib libssl.1.0.0.dylib ? >>> >>> (assuming that libressl indeed installs libssl.35.dylib) >>> >>> If that works, it can be handled with a very simple post-destroot addition >>> in both ports . >> >> Don't do that. There's a 99% chance it won't work for you. > > You know what happens when you say that kind of thing to a Dutch (former) > scientist, eh? ;) > First quick tests (downloading a couple of release tarballs from github, with > /opt/local/bin/curl) suggests that it works. Which doesn't really surprise me > too much: both libraries are written in C. As long as dependent software > sticks to public APIs (and those APIs are indeed compatible), the binary > libraries should be compatible too, regardless of how different they are > "behind the scenes".
The problem is that while the API is compatible, the ABI might not be. Portions of OpenSSL / Libressl are implemented using macros, so the macros might be different in ways that don't appear immediately obvious. _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
