Re: Linking coreutils against OpenSSL
On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 11:13:51PM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > Alternatively, what would you think about making sha256sum etc.
> > divertible and providing implementations both with and without the
> > OpenSSL dependency?
>
> Please, no, no more diversion/alternatives/shenanigans, it's just huge
> and convoluted complications for no real gain.
Agreed, let's not.
If you can get upstream a patch so that coreutils could try to dlopen
OpenSSL and use it if it is available, but skip it if it is not, that
might be one way to avoid OpenSSL going into essential. The challenge
is that OpenSSL is not known for its ability to maintain a stable ABI,
but if we only care about supporting a specific version of OpenSSL
(the one which is shipped with coreutils) and given that the fallback
is a slower sha256sum, which IMHO is *not* a disaster, perhaps it's
doable?
- Ted
Reply to: