Hi Rich Salz
Thank you very much for responding and also for the indirect help through
all your posts and comments in posts I read so far when looking for help
with OpenSSL.
Right, that is a good idea. I will try to achieve it by building it twice
such that I can hopefully avoid the errors in
>Sadly, I can not make use of the "no-shared" option as I still need the
shared libraries to be built.
Statically linking against files built for shared libraries is possible on many
platforms (link against the .a even though .so exists), but not all platforms.
You can always build
I see. Thank you again for answering and for the example ./config arguments.
Sadly, I can not make use of the "no-shared" option as I still need the
shared libraries to be built.
But I wonder if there even is a way to achieve both at the same time.
--
Sent from:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 7:00 AM K Lengauer wrote:
>
So if I understand you correctly you also use the
> "build.info" file to specify the static libraries as dependencies for the
> 'openssl' binary.
>
Negative. We use the following method:
./config \
no-hw \
Hi Michael Mueller
Thank you for answering. So if I understand you correctly you also use the
"build.info" file to specify the static libraries as dependencies for the
'openssl' binary.
Do you encounter any segmentation faults when running the tests provided by
OpenSSL in the
nssl' binary with libssl and libcrypto linked
> statically because the end product may be used on a system where they are
> not available. I recently upgraded to OpenSSL v1.1.1c and previously used
> 1.0.2s which allowed me to get the 'openssl' binary with statically linked
> libssl and l
Hi all,
I am trying to build the 'openssl' binary with libssl and libcrypto linked
statically because the end product may be used on a system where they are
not available. I recently upgraded to OpenSSL v1.1.1c and previously used
1.0.2s which allowed me to get the 'openssl' binary
