[csw-maintainers] openssl relinking effort

[Yann Rouillard]

Traditionnally, these two libraries are always shipped in one package in
all distributions I saw, but don't see a real disadvantage to separate them
in two packages.

I don't see neither a strong advantage in practice. As libssl depend on
libcrypto and libssl is a dependancy of a lot of common packages, I think
users will seldom benefit from the reduction of the dependancy footprint
and they will very often have both libraries installed (but I don't have
real numbers on user installation to support that).

So I am interested in hearing other opinions, but for now I am ready to
follow whatever the consensus is.

Yann


2012/6/8 Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org>

> I noticed that the package libssl1_0_0 contains not one, but two shared
> objects:
>
>
> http://buildfarm.opencsw.org/pkgdb/srv4/b60e3199428815622085fb93557a669f/files/
>
> File: /opt/csw/lib/libcrypto.so.1.0.0
> File: /opt/csw/lib/libssl.so.1.0.0
>
> Since we're doing a larger rebuild effort right now, we should look at
> it now and think if it's better to have them together or separately.
>
> Here's a compiled list of sonames and numbers of dependent packages:
>
> libssl.so.0.9.7 => 5
> libssl.so.0.9.8 => 167
> libssl.so.1.0.0 => 1
> libcrypto.so.0.9.7 => 6
> libcrypto.so.0.9.8 => 197
> libcrypto.so.1.0.0 => 2
>
> So there are packages that depend on libcrypto but don't depend on
> libssl. If we separated libcrypto from libssl, we'd reduce the
> dependency footprint of ~30 packages (197 - 167) by 1 package.
>
> Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
> maintainers mailing list
> maintainers at lists.opencsw.org
> https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
> .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20120608/4f8235ab/attachment.html>