* Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <levitte@stacken.kth.se> [010325 14:41]:
> From: Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>
>
> ler> * Justin Clift <jclift@iprimus.com.au> [010325 07:34]:
> ler> > Hi Peter,
> ler> >
> ler> > Can't this be at least worked around by ./configure detecting there will
> ler> > be a conflict (i.e. being compiled with OpenSSL support on Solaris or
> ler> > Unixware) then creating something like #define
> ler> > OPENSSL_DES_ENCRYPT_NAMESPACE_CONFLICT in the Makefile, and then having
> ler> > crypt.c (etc) check for this and not #include <crypt.h> ?
> ler> >
> ler> > Things compile fine without <crypt.h> being included, in the case of
> ler> > OpenSSL support being needed. As the problem appears to be in
> ler> > already-released versions of OpenSSL, wouldn't the best approach be to
> ler> > notify the OpenSSL guys (they're decent people, and CC'ing this now to
> ler> > their developer list) and also work around the problem ourselves?
> ler> I've been in contact with an OpenSSL guy, and given him a shell
> ler> account here. He's looking into it.
>
> The problem is how to make it smoothe. I'm open for suggestions. And
> it's not as simple as just skipping compilation of des_encrypt() in
> OpenSSL, because it's needed internally. I've no idea if the bast way
> is really to rename the function or something else. Just removing it
> from the exported headers is *not* the solution, because there will
> still be a name clash, the only difference being that ld won't make a
> fuss about it, and the OpenSSL implementation will most probably win,
> making those who call it thinking it's the libc ds_encrypt() loosers!
I suspect renaming it would be the best way, since we have 2 major
(SUN, SCO) vendors claiming a des_encrypt() function in their libcrypt
and/or libc.
LER
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
