Summary: base: Use dlopen to avoid LSB violation [#2396] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2396 Peer Reviewer(s): Ramesh Pull request to: Affected branch(es): default(5.2) Development branch: default
-------------------------------- Impacted area Impact y/n -------------------------------- Docs n Build system n RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF services n OpenSAF services y Core libraries y Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- changeset 5169d44e79a3852ca4ae7649d17904953fb0fc12 Author: Anders Widell <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:33:16 +0200 base: Use dlopen to avoid LSB violation [#2396] Ticket [#2266] introduced a dependency towards the openssl library. This causes two problems: the first one is that this library is not part of LSB. The second (and related) one is that OpenSAF binaries built on one Linux distribution may fail to load on another Linux distribution, due to different names (versions) of this library. The solution uses dlopen() to open the library. If the library cannot be opened, a simple fallback behaviour is used (the hash function returns all zeroes). Complete diffstat: ------------------ .hgignore | 1 + Makefile.am | 15 ++++++++++++- README | 3 +- src/base/Makefile.am | 1 - src/base/hash.cc | 179 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ src/base/hash.h | 37 ++++++++------------------------- src/base/tests/hash_test.cc | 2 + src/log/Makefile.am | 8 ++---- src/log/logd/lgs_main.cc | 3 ++ src/log/tests/lgs_dest_test.cc | 27 +++++++++++++++++++----- 10 files changed, 232 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- make check Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Unit tests shall pass Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from reviwer(s) Arch Built Started Linux distro ------------------------------------------- mips n n mips64 n n x86 n n x86_64 y y powerpc n n powerpc64 n n Reviewer Checklist: ------------------- [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!] Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries that need proper data filled in. ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is too much content into a single commit. ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication of what has changed between each re-send. ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the the threaded patch review. ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results for in-service upgradability test. ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
