Branko Èibej <brane@xbc.nu> wrote on 12/12/2005 06:53:00 AM:
> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>
> >I consider when we make Windows DLLs we should link to openssl static
> >by default.
> >
> >
> I agree in priciple, but consider the following:
>
> * Doing this will, again remove the possibility of creating
> Subversion DLLs from the existing static libs with a simple relink
> (that's assuming that we still link with the dynamic openssl in
> the static libs, which IMHO is the only sane option).
> * There's work going on that will add SSL support to svnserve. Do we
> want to absorb the size of a static openssl _twice_ in our
binaries?
>
>
> I know there are problems with openssl DLL version mismatches. We can
> solve them by doing the same as we do with libintl -- compiling our own
> OpenSSL DLL (which we already do) under a different name.
My motiviation for making OpenSSL static was based entirely on this issue
(version mismatch). So if the build could make its own named version of
the DLL's that would do it for me.
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 12 14:38:55 2005