Given the increased focus of LSB on desktop applications, it may be right time to consider this update. It will be really useful to find out from the application developer community regarding how often they face this problem of distro incompatibility. If this is a reasonably wide-spread problem for many applications, this may provide us a good opportunity to create a version of library with identified stable ABIs. Of course not being the developer or user of OpenSSL, it is easy for me to say that.
>From my observations libcrypto is quite widely used and hence the interest from LSB team. If OpenSSL is really not a candidate today as mentioned by Richard in earlier email, may be it becomes so in near future. The next major release from LSB is planned for in late 2006 or early 2007. So we certainly have time to work towards the goal of getting OpenSSL part of LSB if there is common understanding. Thanks, -Rajesh > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Nuffer > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:33 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Considering SSL and Cryto libraries for LSB > > Dr. Stephen Henson wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2005, Dan Nuffer wrote: > > > > > >>Dr. Stephen Henson wrote: > >> > >>>This means that changing this in the short term is likely to cause > >>>widespread > >>>application breakage which wouldn't be too popular :-( > >>> > >> > >>Speaking as an application developer, I would willingly go > through a > >>one-time source code upgrade to achieve binary > compatiblity. That is > >>more appealing to me than having to repeatedly deal with binary > >>compatiblity issues, because it's less work in the long run. > >> > > > > > > Also speaking as an application developer so would I. > However there are a hell > > of a lot of applications out there that depend on the > existing APIs not > > changing (too) much. > > > > One possibility is to fork 0.9.x into maintenance mode for > those apps. > I'm sure there's lots of reasons that would be painful, but I think > sometimes a library has to make this sort of transition in > order to make > a break with old APIs. > > > Can you give details of some of the binary compatibility > issues you've come > > across? > > > > I'm not sure whether this is the Linux distros' fault or not, but you > can't build a binary dynamically linked to libcrypto or > libssl and have > it work on more than a handful of distros. > > Older Redhats set the soname to libcrypto.[0-3] > Newer Redhats sets the soname to libcrypto.4 > SUSE sets the soname to libcrypto.0.9.7 > > so if you build it on redhat you can't run it on SUSE and vice verse. > > -- > Dan Nuffer > Vintela, Inc. http://vintela.com/ > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org > Development Mailing List [email protected] > Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
