Traditionnally, these two libraries are always shipped in one package in all distributions I saw, but don't see a real disadvantage to separate them in two packages.
I don't see neither a strong advantage in practice. As libssl depend on libcrypto and libssl is a dependancy of a lot of common packages, I think users will seldom benefit from the reduction of the dependancy footprint and they will very often have both libraries installed (but I don't have real numbers on user installation to support that). So I am interested in hearing other opinions, but for now I am ready to follow whatever the consensus is. Yann 2012/6/8 Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński <[email protected]> > I noticed that the package libssl1_0_0 contains not one, but two shared > objects: > > > http://buildfarm.opencsw.org/pkgdb/srv4/b60e3199428815622085fb93557a669f/files/ > > File: /opt/csw/lib/libcrypto.so.1.0.0 > File: /opt/csw/lib/libssl.so.1.0.0 > > Since we're doing a larger rebuild effort right now, we should look at > it now and think if it's better to have them together or separately. > > Here's a compiled list of sonames and numbers of dependent packages: > > libssl.so.0.9.7 => 5 > libssl.so.0.9.8 => 167 > libssl.so.1.0.0 => 1 > libcrypto.so.0.9.7 => 6 > libcrypto.so.0.9.8 => 197 > libcrypto.so.1.0.0 => 2 > > So there are packages that depend on libcrypto but don't depend on > libssl. If we separated libcrypto from libssl, we'd reduce the > dependency footprint of ~30 packages (197 - 167) by 1 package. > > Thoughts? > _______________________________________________ > maintainers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::. >
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
