On 8 February 2010 18:15, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what to make of all this. I'm basically confused! > > > The above makes perfect sense to me. Python was able to find the OpenSSL > include files (did you add /usr/sfw/include to the build scripts somewhere?) > but not the library files (until you added /usr/sfw/lib). > > If /usr/sfw/include is in the default Solaris paths, but /usr/sfw/lib is > not, it seems that'll be an issue with any libraries there, not just > OpenSSL. If it doesn't find the include files, "import hashlib" will still > work as _md5 will be built, showing that OpenSSL is not a dependancy. > > - Robert /usr/sfw/include was not in any search path at all. So it is not a case of the headers being found, but the libraries not found. I was setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH in a Unix shell script before running Sage - not in a python file. Looking at the ssl_incs and search_for_ssl_incs_in in python's setup.py, neither include anywhere related to /usr/sfw. Although the contents of /usr/sfw/ are shiped with Solaris, they are not in the linker's search path. The directory only contains 'freeware' so are not used by the system unless one makes a positive effort to so so. What I have just discovered is OpenSSL was installed in /usr/local/ssl on one machine. It's an version (dated 2004). It might be worth my while tring a fresh build from scratch, with /usr/local/ssl and /usr/sfw not readable. Either that, or perhaps a better long-term solution is to modify python's setup.py to exclude any search directories where SSL might be found. The problem is, to do a really frsh build, it takes days on that machine, at it is very old. Given OpenSSL gives extra functionality, even if not needed in Sage, I dont'd know where Sage would stand legally if it was changed so OpenSSL was not linked by default, but was done if an environment variable SAGE_LINK_OpenSSL_SO_SAGE_IS_NO_LONGER_GPL_SO_DO_NOT_DISTRIBUTE._OR_PUT_ON_A_SERVER_FOR_OTHERS_TO_USE. needed to be set. To my knowlege, if I take GPL code, modify it to link to non-GPL code, as long as I do not distribute that code in either binary or source form, I'm not breaching the GPL. I suppose at that point, it would be wise that Sage was modified to print a message like "Sage is GPL 2, but this version has been modified so it is no longer GPL 2 and so the code must not be distributed". I've been through the FAQ, and can't find anything specific about the use of one copy of a program for private use. Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
