On 9 Jul 2012, at 20:05, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> On 2012/07/08, at 22:25, Barry Margolin wrote:
>> In article >>
>>> So to answer my earlier question, what file were you talking about copying
>>> into the chroot environment for BIND?
>>
>> The shared library. When you link dynamically, all th
On 2012/07/08, at 22:25, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article >
>>
>> So to answer my earlier question, what file were you talking about copying
>> into the chroot environment for BIND?
>
> The shared library. When you link dynamically, all the libraries have to
> be in $chroot/usr/lib.
No, t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/2012 00:23, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> GOST is not available in the version of OpenSSL in the FreeBSD base.
And soon, neither will BIND at all. :)
I already said that I'm not going to alter the behavior of the port. The
problem only comes int
On 09/07/2012 01:40, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/08/2012 17:33, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>>
>> On 2012/07/08, at 20:29, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>
One can also build named w/o GOST support if one wants. We statically
link all th
In article ,
Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> On 2012/07/08, at 20:40, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > On 07/08/2012 17:33, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2012/07/08, at 20:29, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>>
>
> One can also bu
In message <4ffa2871.2020...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> On 07/08/2012 17:33, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> >
> > On 2012/07/08, at 20:29, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> One can also build named w/o GOST support if one wa
On 2012/07/08, at 20:40, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/08/2012 17:33, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>>
>> On 2012/07/08, at 20:29, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>
One can also build named w/o GOST support if one wants. We statically
In message <6a477852-8c67-421a-850c-7144a37b8...@conundrum.com>, Matthew Pounse
tt writes:
>
> On 2012/07/08, at 20:29, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
> >=20
> > On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >=20
> >>=20
> >> One can also build named w/o GOST support if one wants. We =
> statically
On 07/08/2012 17:33, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
> On 2012/07/08, at 20:29, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> One can also build named w/o GOST support if one wants. We statically
>>> link all the engines when building named on Windows.
>>
>> U
On 2012/07/08, at 20:29, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
> On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>>
>> One can also build named w/o GOST support if one wants. We statically
>> link all the engines when building named on Windows.
>
> Unfortunately the port doesn't provide the config hooks
On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> One can also build named w/o GOST support if one wants. We statically
> link all the engines when building named on Windows.
Unfortunately the port doesn't provide the config hooks to disable GOST support.
In message , Matthew Pounse
tt writes:
>
> On 2012/07/08, at 17:46, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > On 07/08/2012 13:40, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> >> Yeah, I have to wonder if there's something that can be done in ports to p
> revent this from being an issue.
> >
> > You need to ask the nice openssl p
On 2012/07/08, at 17:46, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/08/2012 13:40, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>> Yeah, I have to wonder if there's something that can be done in ports to
>> prevent this from being an issue.
>
> You need to ask the nice openssl people to turn gost into a library
> instead of an eng
On 07/08/2012 13:40, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> Yeah, I have to wonder if there's something that can be done in ports to
> prevent this from being an issue.
You need to ask the nice openssl people to turn gost into a library
instead of an engine. Meanwhile, copying the file into the chroot will
pa
On 2012/07/08, at 15:04, Michael Sinatra wrote:
> What makes me doubt what I just said is that this has been an issue for more
> than a year now, so I am not sure why you have escaped it for so long. I
> assume you had openssl 1.0.x installed before you upgraded it--or was it an
> earlier ver
On 07/08/12 09:54, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
08-Jul-2012 16:45:00.352 initializing DST: openssl failure
08-Jul-2012 16:45:00.352 exiting (due to fatal error)
In particular the logs above suggest that named is unable to find the
necessary openssl libraries. In the case where openssl 1.x.x is
co
16 matches
Mail list logo
