Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

OpenSSL 1.0.2e outdated (replaced by 1.0.2f) #614

Closed
brussee opened this issue Jan 28, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

OpenSSL 1.0.2e outdated (replaced by 1.0.2f) #614

brussee opened this issue Jan 28, 2016 · 4 comments

Comments

@brussee
Copy link
Contributor

brussee commented Jan 28, 2016

A new version has been published today. The recipe no longer can download version 1.0.2e.

Does disable-solver.patch still apply?

@brussee brussee changed the title OpenSSL 1.0.2e replaced by 1.0.2f OpenSSL 1.0.2e outdated (replaced by 1.0.2f) Jan 28, 2016
@kived
Copy link
Contributor

kived commented Jan 28, 2016

It's disable-sover.patch, and yes. Android won't let you install libs with so versions like libcrypto.so.1.0.2. That patch makes disables the so versioning so you end up with libcrypto.so. The patch could need updating, but the patching has to happen.

Even if there is a new version, the old version will not go away. It will still be downloadable. However, I cannot connect to www.openssl.org at all - so it seems like this is probably just a web server issue.

@brussee
Copy link
Contributor Author

brussee commented Jan 28, 2016

It appears that both affected lines have shifted 2 lines down.

Why is there --- openssl/Makefile and +++ b/Makefile I expected +++ openssl/Makefile there?

The website is slow for me, probably overloaded.

@kived
Copy link
Contributor

kived commented Jan 28, 2016

Because I name the second directory b when generating patches. The directory name doesn't matter, as patches will be applied with -p1 which will strip the first component from the path.

@brussee
Copy link
Contributor Author

brussee commented Jan 28, 2016

Thanks for your quick replies!
I understand. Please review PR #615

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants