libssl or libssl-dev metapackage?

[Mike Purvis]

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 <brylie at 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 at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
>


-- 
http://uwmike.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20191211/81606ef9/attachment.html>