Re: POP3 over SSL
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Mirek Kwasniak wrote:
>
> Recipe:
>
> $ cd /tmp
> $ mkdir fetchmail
> $ cd fetchmail
> $ apt-get source openssl fetchmail
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> Need to get 2384kB of source archives.
> Get:1 ftp://ftp.task.gda.pl potato/main fetchmail 5.2.3-1 (dsc) [690B]
> Get:2 ftp://ftp.task.gda.pl potato/main fetchmail 5.2.3-1 (tar) [749kB]
> Get:3 ftp://ftp.task.gda.pl potato/main fetchmail 5.2.3-1 (diff) [22.8kB]
> Get:4 http://debian.mps.krakow.pl potato/non-US/main openssl 0.9.4-5 (dsc) [844B]
> Get:5 http://debian.mps.krakow.pl potato/non-US/main openssl 0.9.4-5 (tar) [1571kB]
> Get:6 http://debian.mps.krakow.pl potato/non-US/main openssl 0.9.4-5 (diff) [40.5kB]
> Fetched 2384kB in 7s (422kB/s)
> dpkg-source: extracting openssl in openssl-0.9.4
I have openssl installed already.
> dpkg-source: extracting fetchmail in fetchmail-5.2.3
> $ ( cd openssl-0.9.4; debian/rules build )
> $ cd fetchmail-5.2.3
> $ vi debian/rules
> $ diff debian/rules.ORG debian/rules
> 24c24
> < ./configure --prefix=/usr --enable-nls --enable-NTLM --enable-SDPS
> ---
> > ./configure --prefix=/usr --enable-nls --enable-NTLM --enable-SDPS
> --with-ssl=/tmp/fetchmail/openssl-0.9.4
It will not be ok since it will look for openssl during usage in
/tmp/fetchmail/openssl-0.9.4...
And by the way, it won't even be there during build I think, since it
will be extracted to /tmp/openssl-0.9.4 .
> $ debian/rules clean
> $ SSL=/tmp/x-fetchmail/openssl-0.9.4/
> $ export LIBRARY_PATH=$SSL/ssl/.libs/:$SSL/crypto/.libs/
This is not necessary I think.
> $ debian/rules build
> $ sudo debian/rules binary
> $ ls ../*deb
> ../fetchmail_5.2.3-1_i386.deb ../fetchmailconf_5.2.3-1_all.deb
By the way current fetchmail is 5.3.2 on debian mirror. And it does not
build. Not even close, not even a little bit, not even at all. And I did
not try to put SSL in there. It simply does not build as it is up there.
Period. And 5.2.3 has some bugs in it according to the BTS.
OpenSSL is 0.9.5 in debian mirror.
Robert Varga
Reply to: