On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 06:12:37PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2017/01/09 19:00, Sebastien Marie wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 12:29:50PM +0100, Sebastien Marie wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The "OpenSSL bindings for Rust" checks, using pkg-config, the version of > > > openssl installed, and target 1.0.1 as minimal version. > > > > > > Under OpenBSD, /usr/lib/pkgconfig/openssl.pc is generated by > > > src/lib/libcrypto/generate_pkgconfig.sh, and the "version" is taken from > > > SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER in src/lib/libcrypto/opensslv.h , which is "1.0.0" > > > from ages (Oct-2010). > > > > > > Does the file should be updated in some way ? I saw LibreSSL -portable > > > ship a openssl.pc file with different content (Name: LibreSSL / Version: > > > 2.5.0) instead of "Name: OpenSSL" and "Version: 1.0.0" as on OpenBSD. > > > > > > > As LibreSSL forked from 1.0.1g OpenSSL version, I think it makes sens to > > report it as 1.0.1 instead of 1.0.0. > > Unfortunately this is the same situation (and is going to have the same > mess) as OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER. >
Thanks for the reply, my question (and the diff) was mostly to get confirmation on this point. But what I see it is also there are some gap between LibreSSL and LibreSSL-portable in the way to advertise version using pkgconfig, and so my question. Thanks. -- Sebastien Marie
