On 2009-10-16 at 12:11 +0200, List wrote:
> Hi,
>
> with last commit:
>
> =====================================
> Modified files:
> exim-src/src expand.c functions.h host.c tls-openssl.c
> Log:
> Bugzilla #722
>
> Revision Changes Path
> 1.104 +86 -0 exim/exim-src/src/expand.c
> 1.46 +1 -0 exim/exim-src/src/functions.h
> 1.30 +5 -0 exim/exim-src/src/host.c
> 1.17 +71 -3 exim/exim-src/src/tls-openssl.c
>
> Index: expand.c
> =====================================
>
> awk '{ print ($1+1) }' cnumber.h > cnumber.temp
> rm -f cnumber.h; mv cnumber.temp cnumber.h
> gcc version.c
> rm -f exim
> gcc -o exim
> tls.o: In function `tls_init':
> tls.c:(.text+0x4bc): undefined reference to `EVP_sha256'
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> make[1]: *** [exim] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/rpm/BUILD/exim-4.70/build-Linux-i386'
> make: *** [all] Error 2
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.8761 (%build)
Crap. This is my code. Although the actual commit is revision 1.16 or
tls-openssl.c, which adds the reference to EVP_sha256(). That's for
Bugzilla #674.
You're linking against OpenSSL, right?
What does running:
openssl version
say?
EVP_sha256() was added in 2004; surely any version of OpenSSL old enough
to lack this support has major security issues and is a danger to the
system it's running on?
It looks like it might be 0.9.8-onwards. But I can't find any
authoritative statement to that effect, only third-party comments.
-Phil
