[openssl-users] OpenSSL and RPATH's

Wouter Verhelst wouter.verhelst at fedict.be
Wed May 31 15:16:29 UTC 2017

On 31-05-17 17:11, PGNet Dev wrote:
> On 5/31/17 3:16 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On 30-05-17 18:12, PGNet Dev wrote:
>> [...]
>>> with lots of apps still not at all v110
>>> compatible, or at best broken in their attempts, having local builds of
>>> both v110x and v102x is extremely useful -- and RPATH'ing makes that
>>> trivially manageable.
>> That's exactly my point -- you don't need to use RPATH to handle that
>> (very common) case. You just need to link against the correct .so file
>> at compile time (which can be handled by installing them in separate
>> directories and using -L to specify which one to link to); the runtime
>> dynamic linker will then find a v1.1 version of OpenSSL for applications
>> compiled against 1.1.0x, or a v1.0.2 version for applications compiled
>> against 1.0.2x. It's that simple.
>> RPATH is useful if the SONAME is the same but the libraries aren't, for
>> whatever reason (e.g., local patches). Other than that, you don't need
>> it, 
>> and it's generally a bad idea.
> And, IMO, that's just bad advice.  RPATH is perfectly fine, and this^ is exactly what it exists for.  Feel free to use it or not, but don't FUD perfectly legitimate functionality as a 'bad idea'.

You're quoting me out of context.

I said "Other than that, [...] it's generally a bad idea". I didn't say
"it's always a bad idea", nor did I imply that.

I also said "RPATH is useful if the SONAME is the same but the libraries
aren't". Your example (snipped for brevity) is an example of exactly
that. So we're in agreement?

Wouter Verhelst

More information about the openssl-users mailing list