Re: [HACKERS] Linking libpq statically to libssl

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Daniele Varrazzo <daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com> writes:
>> I have a problem building binary packages for psycopg2. Binary
>> packages ship with their own copies of libpq and libssl; however if
>> another python package links to libssl the library will be imported
>> twice with conflicting symbols, likely resulting in a segfault (see
>> https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg2/issues/543). This happens e.g. if
>> a python script both connects to postgres and opens an https resource.
>
> Basically, you're doing it wrong.  Shipping your own copy of libssl,
> rather than depending on whatever packaging the platform provides,
> is just asking for pain --- and not only of this sort.  You're also
> now on the hook to update your package whenever libssl fixes a bug
> or a security vulnerability, which happens depressingly often.
>
> The same applies to libpq, really.  You don't want to be in the
> business of shipping bits that you are not the originator of.
>
> When I worked at Red Hat, there was an ironclad policy against
> building packages that incorporated other packages statically.
> I would imagine that other distros have similar policies for
> similar reasons.  Just because you *can* ignore those policies
> doesn't mean you *should*.

Distros do compile the library from source and against the system
package, and everyone using the package directly can still do so; the
binary packages are only installed by the Python package manager.
Psycopg is more complex to install than the average Python package (it
needs python and postgres dev files, pg_config available somewhere
etc) and a no-dependencies package provides a much smoother
experience. It also happens that the libpq and libssl versions used
tend to be more up-to-date than the system one (people can already use
the new libpq 10 features without waiting for debian packages).

I am confronted with the reality of Python developers as of 201x's,
and shipping binary packages has proven generally a positive feature,
even factoring in the need of shipping updated binary packages when
the need arises. The benefit of a simple-to-use library is for the
Postgres project at large, it is not for my personal gain. So while I
know the shortcomings of binary packages and static libraries, I would
still be interested in knowing the best way to fix the problem in the
subject. Feel free to write in private if you want to avoid the public
shaming.

-- Daniele


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers