[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: [Pkg-openssl-devel] Statement(s) on libssl situation desired

kurt@roeckx.be wrote:
> Please note that libssl0.9.7 and libssl0.9.8 have a different
> SONAME.  There can only be a problem when a program (indirectly)
> links to both of them.  In that case, there isn't even an option
> not to install both of them.
> If a program is linked to both of them, and it was not linked to
> a lib with versioned symbols, there really isn't much you can
> tell about which symbols it's going to pick.
Right.  Thanks for being clearer than me.  

Consider the fate of a binary built against libssl0.9.8 with unversioned 
symbols, once libssl0.9.8 with versioned symbols is installed.  Suppose also 
that libssl0.9.7 -- with unversioned symbols -- is indirectly linked in (very 
likely in complicated situations like KDE, and because libssl may be 

The dynamic linker will resolve the unversioned symbols from the binary -- 
supposed to be, at least in some cases, libssl0.9.8 symbols -- to the 
unversioned symbols it finds, namely, the ones in libssl0.9.7.  This is bad 
if the ABI has actually changed between 0.9.7 and 0.9.8, as it will lead to 
tricky-to-track-down bugs at runtime.

It would be best, therefore, if nothing were built against libssl0.9.8 until 
the libssl0.9.8 with versioned symbols is available (after which everything 
will be hunky-dory).

Reply to: