OpenSSL 1.1.1 libssl.so version number

[Daniel Eischen]

> On Oct 12, 2018, at 10:58 PM, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at cschubert.com> wrote:
> 
> In message <tkrat.3c3bfd84a6c58d9a at FreeBSD.org>, Don Lewis writes:
>> Prior to the OpenSSL 1.1.1 import, the base OpenSSL library was
>> /usr/lib/libssl.so.8.  The security/openssl port (1.0.2p) installed
>> ${LOCALBASE}/lib/ilbssl.so.9 and the security/openssl-devel port
>> (1.1.0i) installed ${LOCALBASE}/lib/libssl.so.11.  After the import, the
>> base OpenSSL library is /usr/lib/libssl.so.9.  Now if you build ports
>> with DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=openssl, the library that actually gets used
>> is ambiguous because there are now two different versions of libssl.so
>> (1.0.2p and 1.1.1) with the same shared library version number.
>> 
>> I stumbled across this when debugging a virtualbox-ose configure
>> failure.  The test executable was linked to the ports version of
>> libssl.so but rtld chose the base libssl.so at run time.
> 
> This is also the issue with ports-mgmt/pkg on a system that still 
> requires OpenSSL 1.0.2 from ports in order to support an old client.
> 
> cwfw# pkg info
> ld-elf.so.1: /usr/local/lib/libcrypto.so.9: version OPENSSL_1_1_0 
> required by /usr/local/lib/libpkg.so.4 not defined
> cwfw# 
> 
> If I remove security/openssl, the above issue is resolved however the 
> old client, which should be replaced next year, fails to communicate 
> with the server. The classic rock & a hard place scenario.

Not saying this is a real solution for the general problem, but can you use a libmap.conf entry to work around this?

--
DE