>> OS X side steps the problems with selecting the wrong runtime library >> and RPATHs by using something called an install name. Effectively, the >> install name should be placed in libcrypto.dylib and libssl.dylib, and >> it calls out the fully qualified path name. Programs linked to a >> library with an install name will record the library, and dyld(1) will >> link to the proper library at runtime. There's no need for tricks like >> LD_LIBRARY_PATH on Linux (its called DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH on OS X). > > Well, formally speaking the feature was always there, all you needed to > do is to pass -Wl,-headerpad_max_install_names at config time ;-) One > can argue that it would be appropriate to run `which install_name_tool` > in ./config and add the option automatically. Would it be acceptable? I > mean would presence of install_name_tool be reliable indicator that > linker supports -headerpad_max_install_names? > >> To make room for an install name that may change (for example, from >> PWD to /usr/local/ssl/lib, you need to use the flag >> -headerpad_max_install_names on libcrypto.dylib and libssl.dylib. >> >> To add the icing to the cake, 'make install' should add the following >> to its recipe for OS X: >> >> cp libcrypto.dylib $(DESTDIR)$(OPENSSLDIR)/lib/libcrypto.dylib >> install_name_tool -id $(DESTDIR)$(OPENSSLDIR)/lib/libcrypto.dylib >> $(DESTDIR)$(OPENSSLDIR)/lib/libcrypto.dylib > > Does it really copy libcrypto.dylib and not libcrypto.1.1.dylib? For me > it copies the latter... Anyway, the suggested additional step should not > be required, because we do pass -install_name when linking .dylib. > install_name_tool step would be required if you install it at > alternative location, but it doesn't belong in our Makefile. I mean > because our Makefile would install in same location as -install_name anyway.
This was discussed a little bit off-list. It was confirmed that build procedure writes correct install path in right places, so that default install procedure doesn't require any adjustments, and therefore -headerpad_max_install_names is not normally required. Or in other words it's required only in *special* cases. And it's argued that special cases can and should be treated by special means, e.g. by adding -Wl,-headerpad_max_install_names at config time as mentioned above. -- Ticket here: http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=4367 Please log in as guest with password guest if prompted -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
