Don't be fooled. OpenSSL 1.0.1 did not break binary compatibility, the lib designation remains .so.1.0.0. Can someone confirm whether this was changed in 1.0.2? On May 29, 2015 10:26 AM, "Mario Brandt" <jbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andy, > > it seems that you are right. After cheking the lib I saw this > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4,4M Mai 29 10:51 libcrypto.a > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Mai 29 10:51 libcrypto.so -> > libcrypto.so.1.0.0 > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 2,6M Mai 29 10:51 libcrypto.so.1.0.0 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 744K Mai 29 10:51 libssl.a > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Mai 29 10:51 libssl.so -> libssl.so.1.0.0 > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 499K Mai 29 10:51 libssl.so.1.0.0 > > that shows the current date, but the old version number. > > Mario > > On 29 May 2015 at 15:16, Wang, Andy <aw...@ptc.com> wrote: > > You might want to reconsider that unless you really really are sure you > know what you're doing. > > On a linux distro, the system installed openssl is considered a > fundamental platform infrastructure library. I.e. many many things rely on > it. openssl versions are not backward compatible. > > > > So if you don't rebuild all of your distro installed dependencies on > openssl, you've likedly just screwed up runtime linking of alot of things. > > > > Also, the system installed library and the openssl config makefiles may > be using incompatible soname mechanisms, which could explain why you're > able to link but not run (i.e. at linktime it may be finding the right > library, but at runtime it's not). > > > > Andy > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Mario Brandt [jbl...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:57 AM > > To: Tom Browder > > Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org > > Subject: Re: httpd and OpenSSL 1.0.2 > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > nope setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH did not solve my problem. That is a bit > > tricky since I install the new openssl version system wide > > > > ./config --prefix=/usr zlib-dynamic --openssldir=/etc/ssl shared no-ssl2 > > > > > > Mario > > > >> -Tom >
