On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: > macro> Of course -- that is a win, anyway, as long as you don't have various > macro> software linked against different versions of libraries. Since a lot of > macro> programs depend on SSL these days, you'll probably end up in such a > macro> situation sooner or later. > > That's usually not a problem, just don't throw away the older versions > of the libraries until you're sure you don't need them any more. This > is quite a common problem and it's usually solved that way.
Yes, sure -- I just meant you don't get full benefits of library sharing then (but you get all the losses, e.g. slower and bigger code due to being compiled as PIC on systems that support non-PIC executables). Note, if you use a packaging system and the bogus symlinks get registered as belonging to a package you may get conflicts between package versions if you want to keep many of them installed. This problem gets eliminated by the patch I just sent to you. Maciej -- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], PGP key available + ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
