Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
had to walk into mine and say:
> From: "Verdon Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> VWalker> We would like to deliver one library to our customers instead
> VWalker> of separate libraries for cryptography (libeay) and SSL
> VWalker> (ssleay). Has anyone done the work to support this already?
> VWalker> If not, can anyone think of any problems in doing it? Or any
> VWalker> reasons not to do it?
>
> I haven't heard of anyone doing that, but I can't see the harm if you
> do it.
We ship a single "libopenssl.so" to get around some shared-library
issues (symbol conflicts between netscape's LDAP library and OpenSSL, if
I recall correctly). As a side effect, it also means that people running
our code get *our* version of the libraries, and not whatever they
happen to have installed in /usr/lib :-)
The .a's are just .a's; there's no reason why they couldn't be combined
into a single .a. There aren't any filename conflicts, for example.
--
Harald Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"It takes a child to raze a village."
-Michael T. Fry
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
