Symbol conflict between libgnutls-openssl and real openssl

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmav at
Wed Aug 27 17:59:56 CEST 2008

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
<n.mavrogiannopoulos at> wrote:

>>> What do you think about this proposal?
>> I like it.  gnutls/openssl.h should thus contain a set of #define's such
>> as:
>> #define MD5_Init gnutls_openssl_MD5_Init
>> Fortunately we have never guaranteed binary level compatibility with
>> OpenSSL, so this change does not require any API changes in applications
>> that uses libgnutls-openssl, just a recompile.  It will indeed require a
>> SONAME bump, and currently both libgnutls and libgnutls-openssl share
>> the same SONAME version.  We have discussed before if and how these
>> versions can be separated.  I suspect we have to make a decision now.
> I think this is too much fuss. The gnutls-openssl layer is quick and
> dirty fix. I wouldn't recommend to any applications to use it. Either
> use openssl or gnutls directly. If you have this issue why not
> recompile the application with openssl instead?

I'm not so much against any such patch. I'm mostly against maintaining
this gnutls-openssl library. I think we should drop it.


More information about the Gnutls-devel mailing list