On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 07:56:02AM -0800, Richard wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > > What I'm wondering is if there's any reason that would prevent RHEL, for > > example, to package LibreSSL in the same way that libasr was packaged so > > that OpenSMTPD could specifically depend on it. > > > > The system would keep its default SSL library. > > > > Library name collision > ---------------------- > Libasr is a unique library name on Linux as far as I know and there is no > problem installing it. > > LibreSSL contains library names libcrypto and libssl which collide with > the identical names in OpenSSL on most Linux systems. > > Can the libcrypto and libssl library names in LibreSSL be changed? > > Maybe they can change to liblibrecrypto and liblibressl? > > LibreSSL also uses library libtls. > Is libtls unique in Linux? > > If not maybe it can change to liblibretls? > > Changing the library names allows LibreSSL and OpenSSL to exist > side by side on any Linux system. >
I'm well aware of that, but that's precisely what I'm suggesting: If the ONLY reason keeping from depending on LibreSSL is that there is a problem currently with the library name, then we can take a step back to think of a solution that would solve this and help us move forward. -- Gilles Chehade https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg -- You received this mail because you are subscribed to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send a mail to: [email protected]
