On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 10:50:05AM +0200, Michael Ablassmeier wrote: > hi robert, > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 10:07:38AM +0200, Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote: > > It seems that zabbix is explicitly checking for and linking with libz and > > libcrypto. Look at the logs: > > > > checking for compress in -lz... yes > > [...] > > checking for main in -lcrypto... yes > > [...] > > gcc -Wall -g -O2 -o zabbix_server [...] -lz [...] -lcrypto > > well, i have just had a look at other packages build-depending on > libsnmp-dev, and all ive had a look at add -lcrypto to the linking > flags on build time, as this seems to bee needed when linking against > snmp stuff: > > from ifstat's configure.in: > # Setting to be able to force linking with -lcrypto.. > > from netmgr's configure.in: > # Net/UCD-SNMP includes v3 support and insists on crypto unless > # compiled --without-openssl
Since libsnmp is *already* linking with libz and libcrypto, if zabbix itself doesn't use them directly, there's no need for a direct link. > > However (and this a more important fact that I overlooked), in the case of > > openssl it would be illegal to link a GPL program with it, since the OpenSSL > > developers added an advertising clausse that makes it incompatible. A > > Build-Conflicts should be present in order to avoid this from happening. > > Alternatively, you could link it with GnuTLS compat layer to see how it > > works > > out. > > *sight*, i have feared this might be the case. However, i dont quite > understand the case here. Zabbix does not use any of the openssl headers > or functions in its code and is nevertheless linking against libcrypto > which is needed because libsnmp9-dev is linked against openssl. Then it's not really needed. Just disable the -lcrypto flag (or add a Build-Conflicts). If you want an explanation for this non-sense, I think the most plausible one is that they enabled direct linking with libz/libcrypto as a workaround for static binary brokenness. I.e. you can't build a static zabbix without "-lz -lcrypto" > Fabio, > what do you think about this? Should i start ask Alexei for permission > about linking against openssl so we are on the safe side? Unless Alexei recieved copyright assignment papers from all significant (~>15 lines) contributions, he can't really (legaly) do that. -- Robert Millan ACK STORM, S.L. - http://www.ackstorm.es -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
