3 ms·
I would be the first to agree that dynamic linking is evil, but how is this related with the issue at hand, which is client-to-server communication? No amount o
by stingraycharles 11y ago
I would be the first to agree that dynamic linking is evil, but how is this related with the issue at hand, which is client-to-server communication? No amount of static linking of Chrome would magically upgrade the SSL version being used to package Debian, for example.
What am I missing here?
- heavenlyhash 11y agoChrome did not previously rely on a dynlinked system library for the negotiation feature. Now, evidently, it does. In making this transition, Chrome experienced a massive practical regression for many users, precisely because the dynlinked library is not sufficiently up to date for many people. I'd say dynamic linking is related to the issue at hand, yeah.
- slrz 11y agoNo, it's not. The article is about missing support on the server side, not in Chrome.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 11y ago>No amount of static linking of Chrome would magically upgrade the SSL version being used to package Debian, for example. No, but if Debian packages had statically compiled OpenSSL you could just update say Nginx and get it working with the new protocol Chrome requires, while 100+ packages could still be left as is and use their own, older, version of the lib.