I created an ebuild which corrects the padlock compile-bug in openssl. I took the patches from the above link, would be cool to add the feature, since no other distro except Fedora offers a working openssl with padlock. openssl098-padlock-shared-move.diff, 2006-12-28 03:53, MD5, SHA1, gpg signature Patch to move crypto/engine/eng_padlock.c to engines/e_padlock.c http://www.logix.cz/michal/devel/padlock/openssl098-padlock-shared-move.diff openssl098-padlock-shared-makefiles.diff, 2006-12-28 03:53, MD5, SHA1, gpg signature Update for Makefiles to compile the padlock module as a shared module http://www.logix.cz/michal/devel/padlock/openssl-0.9.7d-padlock-engine.diff (renamed .diff to .patch to macht gentoo ebuild guidelines) I tested on VIA C3 Nehemiah, compiles fine and is working: $ openssl engine padlock (padlock) VIA PadLock (no-RNG, ACE)
Created attachment 124791 [details] openssl-0.9.8e-r1.ebuild with padlock patch support
Created attachment 124792 [details] openssl-0.9.8-padlock-shared-makefiles.patch (patch belonging to openssl-0.9.8d-r1.ebuild)
Comment on attachment 124791 [details] openssl-0.9.8e-r1.ebuild with padlock patch support sorry, wrong ebuild attached
Created attachment 124793 [details] openssl-0.9.8-padlock-shared-move.patch (patch belonging to openssl-0.9.8d-r1.ebuild)
Created attachment 124795 [details] openssl/openssl-0.9.8d-r1.ebuild (ebuild with padlock patches)
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 145537 ***
Jakub, so does this mean it won't happen? Or do you want me to refile the bug under the other bugnumber? Sorry, but I am confused...
(In reply to comment #7) > Jakub, so does this mean it won't happen? Or do you want me to refile the bug > under the other bugnumber? > > Sorry, but I am confused... As said on the other bug - get this merged upstream.
