Okay, I think I have a static version of Stunnel now. Thanks to help and answers from Jan and Keven!
I did this:
./configure --with-ssl=/usr --enable-static --disable-shared --disable-libwrap
I'm not sure about the "--with-ssl" option, but it didn't seem to want to work without it.
So I have a few questions:
1) How can I be sure it is static? 2) If it isn't static and I run it on a system that does not have all it needs, will it give me errors immediately, or only if a subroutine needs a library that isn't there. 3) Does the "--disable-libwrap" or anything else remove any features? 4) Does using the "--with-ssl" option make it use the libs on my system and make it non-static? 5) My "best guess" is that to install a static version, I just copy over the files src/stunnel and src/libstunnel.la to /usr/bin and /usr/lib, respectively. Is that right? (And, of course, copy man files to the right place.)
Thanks -- I hope I'll be done with all these questions soon.
Hal
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 02:48, Hal Vaughan wrote:
Okay, I think I have a static version of Stunnel now. Thanks to help and answers from Jan and Keven!
I did this:
./configure --with-ssl=/usr --enable-static --disable-shared --disable-libwrap
I'm not sure about the "--with-ssl" option, but it didn't seem to want to work without it.
So I have a few questions:
- How can I be sure it is static?
- If it isn't static and I run it on a system that does not have all
it needs, will it give me errors immediately, or only if a subroutine needs a library that isn't there. 3) Does the "--disable-libwrap" or anything else remove any features?
I got a few answers on this. From what I understand, yes, this removes features, but those are features that aren't needed on the client end, which is no problem for me, since the static version will only be used as a client.
- Does using the "--with-ssl" option make it use the libs on my
system and make it non-static?
It turns out it was a typo (that's what I get for trying it at 2:30 am!), and it compiles without the "--with-ssl" option. I'll be testing this later today and looking up this on Google, but what features am I losing on the client by not using this option? And does using it make the compiled version dependant on those libraries? I take it that the compiler is not just taking those libraries and incorporating them into the binary if I use "--enable-static" and "--disable-shared". Is that right?
Thanks again for those that have helped, like Kevin, Jan, and John. It looks like I'm finally getting close to what I need! Getting this working will save me hours on many occasions.
Hal
You have to have the SSL libs so the --with-ssl probaly just "helps" the configure program use the right SSL. For example, I typically keep the redhat openssl rpm and use a version in /usr/local/ssl so I would have to do --with-ssl=/usr/local/ssl/ to use the libraries installed there instead of the "default" ones.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Vaughan" hal@thresholddigital.com To: stunnel-users@mirt.net Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [stunnel-users] Static Version Built?
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 02:48, Hal Vaughan wrote:
Okay, I think I have a static version of Stunnel now. Thanks to help and answers from Jan and Keven!
I did this:
./configure --with-ssl=/usr --enable-static --disable-shared --disable-libwrap
I'm not sure about the "--with-ssl" option, but it didn't seem to want to work without it.
So I have a few questions:
- How can I be sure it is static?
- If it isn't static and I run it on a system that does not have all
it needs, will it give me errors immediately, or only if a subroutine needs a library that isn't there. 3) Does the "--disable-libwrap" or anything else remove any features?
I got a few answers on this. From what I understand, yes, this removes features, but those are features that aren't needed on the client end, which is no problem for me, since the static version will only be used as a client.
- Does using the "--with-ssl" option make it use the libs on my
system and make it non-static?
It turns out it was a typo (that's what I get for trying it at 2:30 am!), and it compiles without the "--with-ssl" option. I'll be testing this later today and looking up this on Google, but what features am I losing on the client by not using this option? And does using it make the compiled version dependant on those libraries? I take it that the compiler is not just taking those libraries and incorporating them into the binary if I use "--enable-static" and "--disable-shared". Is that right?
Thanks again for those that have helped, like Kevin, Jan, and John. It looks like I'm finally getting close to what I need! Getting this working will save me hours on many occasions.
Hal _______________________________________________ stunnel-users mailing list stunnel-users@mirt.net http://stunnel.mirt.net/mailman/listinfo/stunnel-users
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 11:51, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
You have to have the SSL libs so the --with-ssl probaly just "helps" the configure program use the right SSL. For example, I typically keep the redhat openssl rpm and use a version in /usr/local/ssl so I would have to do --with-ssl=/usr/local/ssl/ to use the libraries installed there instead of the "default" ones.
So it still uses libraries (or not a compiled library, but source or headers or whatever) anyway? If that is so, then from what I understand, specifying would force it to be non-static and not specifying it and using "--enable-static" and "--disable-shared" should produce a static binary. Do I understand correctly?
Thanks!
Hal
----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Vaughan" hal@thresholddigital.com To: stunnel-users@mirt.net Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [stunnel-users] Static Version Built?
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 02:48, Hal Vaughan wrote:
Okay, I think I have a static version of Stunnel now. Thanks to help and answers from Jan and Keven!
I did this:
./configure --with-ssl=/usr --enable-static --disable-shared --disable-libwrap
I'm not sure about the "--with-ssl" option, but it didn't seem to want to work without it.
So I have a few questions:
- How can I be sure it is static?
- If it isn't static and I run it on a system that does not have
all it needs, will it give me errors immediately, or only if a subroutine needs a library that isn't there. 3) Does the "--disable-libwrap" or anything else remove any features?
I got a few answers on this. From what I understand, yes, this removes features, but those are features that aren't needed on the client end, which is no problem for me, since the static version will only be used as a client.
- Does using the "--with-ssl" option make it use the libs on my
system and make it non-static?
It turns out it was a typo (that's what I get for trying it at 2:30 am!), and it compiles without the "--with-ssl" option. I'll be testing this later today and looking up this on Google, but what features am I losing on the client by not using this option? And does using it make the compiled version dependant on those libraries? I take it that the compiler is not just taking those libraries and incorporating them into the binary if I use "--enable-static" and "--disable-shared". Is that right?
Thanks again for those that have helped, like Kevin, Jan, and John. It looks like I'm finally getting close to what I need! Getting this working will save me hours on many occasions.
Hal _______________________________________________ stunnel-users mailing list stunnel-users@mirt.net http://stunnel.mirt.net/mailman/listinfo/stunnel-users
It's not going to use source. It's going to use headers and compiled libraries. Specifying it just helps point it to the correct headers and libraries if you for example, have them installed in an unusual place or have more than one set on your machine.
Regards, kAM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Vaughan" hal@thresholddigital.com To: stunnel-users@mirt.net Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [stunnel-users] Static Version Built?
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 11:51, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
You have to have the SSL libs so the --with-ssl probaly just "helps" the configure program use the right SSL. For example, I typically keep the redhat openssl rpm and use a version in /usr/local/ssl so I would have to do --with-ssl=/usr/local/ssl/ to use the libraries installed there instead of the "default" ones.
So it still uses libraries (or not a compiled library, but source or headers or whatever) anyway? If that is so, then from what I understand, specifying would force it to be non-static and not specifying it and using "--enable-static" and "--disable-shared" should produce a static binary. Do I understand correctly?
Thanks!
Hal
----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Vaughan" hal@thresholddigital.com To: stunnel-users@mirt.net Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [stunnel-users] Static Version Built?
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 02:48, Hal Vaughan wrote:
Okay, I think I have a static version of Stunnel now. Thanks to help and answers from Jan and Keven!
I did this:
./configure --with-ssl=/usr --enable-static --disable-shared --disable-libwrap
I'm not sure about the "--with-ssl" option, but it didn't seem to want to work without it.
So I have a few questions:
- How can I be sure it is static?
- If it isn't static and I run it on a system that does not have
all it needs, will it give me errors immediately, or only if a subroutine needs a library that isn't there. 3) Does the "--disable-libwrap" or anything else remove any features?
I got a few answers on this. From what I understand, yes, this removes features, but those are features that aren't needed on the client end, which is no problem for me, since the static version will only be used as a client.
- Does using the "--with-ssl" option make it use the libs on my
system and make it non-static?
It turns out it was a typo (that's what I get for trying it at 2:30 am!), and it compiles without the "--with-ssl" option. I'll be testing this later today and looking up this on Google, but what features am I losing on the client by not using this option? And does using it make the compiled version dependant on those libraries? I take it that the compiler is not just taking those libraries and incorporating them into the binary if I use "--enable-static" and "--disable-shared". Is that right?
Thanks again for those that have helped, like Kevin, Jan, and John. It looks like I'm finally getting close to what I need! Getting this working will save me hours on many occasions.
Hal _______________________________________________ stunnel-users mailing list stunnel-users@mirt.net http://stunnel.mirt.net/mailman/listinfo/stunnel-users
stunnel-users mailing list stunnel-users@mirt.net http://stunnel.mirt.net/mailman/listinfo/stunnel-users
-
Hal Vaughan -
Kevin A. McGrail