>>>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:05:13 -0500, Dan Langille said: > > > On Feb 9, 2018, at 1:34 PM, Martin Simmons <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 20:33:49 -0500, Dan Langille said: > >> > >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Martin Simmons <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> It looks like LibreSSL defines OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER as 0x20000000L, > >>> i.e. as > >>> if it was OpenSSL 2.0. Bacula uses this variable to detect OpenSSL >= > >>> 1.1, > >>> which causes it to compile the 1.1 code when using LibreSSL, even though > >>> LibreSSL only claims to provide the API from OpenSSL 1.0. > >>> > >>> Bacula probably needs to detect LibreSSL (e.g. look for > >>> LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER) and treat that as OpenSSL 1.0 regardless of > >>> OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER. > >> > >> This seems to fit closely with a patch provided to FreeBSD: > >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223994 > >> > >> I could file a bug and pass this directly to the Bacula project, and in > >> the meantime, patch the FreeBSD port. > >> > >> Both will take time and I'm preoccupied with conferences just now. > > > > That patch looks incomplete though (there are a few other uses of > > OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER). > > New patches have been uploaded to > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223994 > > Does that look better?
I've replied on the bugzilla. __Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
