The openssl package is more than just a metapackage; it also contains some docs, manpages, and a few small utilities. However, it's also 900kb compared with 7MB+ for libssl-dev, so that one's probably the way to go:
https://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/openssl https://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/libssl-dev Note that for normal packaging under Debian/Ubuntu, it's unnecessary to care which exact version you have— you can build-depend on libssl-dev, and then during the packaging step, the magic of dpkg-shlibdeps will examine the linker information on your installed binaries and figure out from there what the binary package's dependencies should be. Since it sounds like you're doing some kind of custom pipe-to-sudo-bash type installer, unfortunately this doesn't apply, so depending on the openssl package probably makes the most sense. On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 2:02 PM Brylie Christopher Oxley <bry...@amble.fi> wrote: > Hello, > > I am contributing to an install script that relies on libssl. The script > is currently hard-coding for libssl release numbers and adding > conditional checks for each published version. I have suggested that we > instead use the libssl-dev or openssl metapackage. The concern with > libssl-dev is that there might be experimental releases under that alias. > > Is there a libssl alias or some other way to get only stable libssl > releases? > > Kind regards, > > Brylie > > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -- http://uwmike.com
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
