Re: Delivering a Single Library

[Verdon Walker]

Did you modify the configuration scripts to set up the single library or did you just edit the makefiles directly? That is the issue I am looking into now. (If you have anything you want to share, we'd love to see it.)   Verdon Walker (801) 861-2633 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell Inc., the leading provider of Net Services Software www.novell.com >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/09/01 08:49PM >>> 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]