Having OpenSSL and LibreSSL living together on the same system seems reasonable. Surely name conflicts can be worked around somehow?
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many people run OpenSMTP on the offending systems compared to OpenBSD? Cheers, Tim Hume. > On 24 Dec 2015, at 03:06, Gilles Chehade <gil...@poolp.org> wrote: > >> 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 misc@opensmtpd.org > To unsubscribe, send a mail to: misc+unsubscr...@opensmtpd.org > -- You received this mail because you are subscribed to misc@opensmtpd.org To unsubscribe, send a mail to: misc+unsubscr...@opensmtpd.org
