OpenSSL 1.1.1 libssl.so version number

[Cy Schubert]

In message <0F7EB379-8C52-478A-AA5A-AC4257E5B70A at freebsd.org>, Daniel 
Eischen w
rites:
> 
>
> > 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?

I tried using the path1 path2 form. No joy there.


-- 
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at cschubert.com>
FreeBSD UNIX:  <cy at FreeBSD.org>   Web:  http://www.FreeBSD.org

	The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.