On Apr 16 18:47, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > On 2012-04-06 03:20, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >After reading that problem I'm wondering if it's not the fault of the > >openssl packaging. The runtime shared libs cygssl and cygcrypto are in > >the libopensslXXX package, but the engines are in the openssl package. > > That would seem to be the problem, as libcrypto is the one to use > the engines directly. > > >Yaakov, do you just change the dependency of the bind package > > Wouldn't this be a problem for any package using libcrypto? > > >or do you think the engines should be moved to the libopensslXXX package? > > There is a problem with that. Both 0.9.x and 1.0.1 install the > engines into the same directory, /usr/lib/engines. You can't ship > them in both libopenssl098 and libopenssl100 because of file > clobbering, and as most of them are linked with libcrypto, I wonder > what happens if you use the 1.0.1 engines with 0.9.x or vice-versa.
I have no idea. I didn't even know that any package in the distro is actually using engines. > Therefore, the proper solution is for each version of the libraries > to install their engines into a versioned directory > (/usr/lib/openssl-$PV/engines) and ship them in the libopenssl > packages. Unfortunately, that will require patching the Configure > script, such as: > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;f=openssl-1.0.0-beta5-enginesdir.patch;hb=HEAD Oh boy. Can't we just update the remaining 48 packages using openssl? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
