Yes, it does exist. And yes, setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH does fix things. It wasn't set. It does seem that openssl was clear of any wrong doing, I am sorry to have posted offtopic. But you guys have been really helpful. Technically, the -L arguments should have done what LD_LIBRARY_PATH did. I'll take that to the solaris forum. It seems something just might be screwed up in this environment....
Ah, no, -L did the right thing: the test program were linked against what was needed.
But LD_LIBRARY_PATH (as crle(1)) is for runtime link, ie, even if the test program is linked against the right lib, it may not find it when it's run (most ./configure say "program was linked but could not run", something like that).
-R should have done that, though, but in some cases, putting it in CFLAGS is not enough, because only LDFLAGS is used when linking.
From what I understand, LD_LIBRARY_PATH is not always a good way of working wiht things, but seems much eaiser than failed builds :)
http://www.visi.com/~barr/ldpath.html
Well, on Solaris, rather than using LD_LIBRARY_PATH, I'd advise you to try crle(1). Carefully, because breaking it might harm your system's health :-)
Many people also think that only -R should be used.
Out of this slightly off-topic thread on how to compile OpenSSL on Solaris :-)
Laurent
______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
