[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Symbol conflict between libgnutls-openssl and real openssl
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
Re: Symbol conflict between libgnutls-openssl and real openssl |
Date: |
Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:36:11 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) |
"Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos" <address@hidden> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>>> What do you think about this proposal?
>>>
>>> I like it. gnutls/openssl.h should thus contain a set of #define's such
>>> as:
>>>
>>> #define MD5_Init gnutls_openssl_MD5_Init
>>>
>>> Fortunately we have never guaranteed binary level compatibility with
>>> OpenSSL, so this change does not require any API changes in applications
>>> that uses libgnutls-openssl, just a recompile. It will indeed require a
>>> SONAME bump, and currently both libgnutls and libgnutls-openssl share
>>> the same SONAME version. We have discussed before if and how these
>>> versions can be separated. I suspect we have to make a decision now.
>>
>> I think this is too much fuss. The gnutls-openssl layer is quick and
>> dirty fix. I wouldn't recommend to any applications to use it. Either
>> use openssl or gnutls directly. If you have this issue why not
>> recompile the application with openssl instead?
>
> I'm not so much against any such patch. I'm mostly against maintaining
> this gnutls-openssl library. I think we should drop it.
I agree that libgnutls-openssl is ugly... however, I think there are
some licensing corner cases where libgnutls-openssl actually is useful
to some people.
I think if people send patches we can apply them, but I don't see any
reason to do anything beyond that.
/Simon