klibloader / launcher unkwon signal 15

[Jason Hihn]

Binary size is not too much of a constraint for me. I'd like to to load/run
faster, if it takes more space, then I'd consider it space well used. I have
a lot of JS that is rather slow on 166 and 400Mhz boxen...

As long as the older snapshots stay available, I don't see why we can't move
on to 3.2.

-J
Verint Systems Inc
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Luciano Montanaro [mailto:mikelima at cirulla.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 9:22 AM
To: For discussion of Konqueror/Embedded
Subject: Re: klibloader / launcher unkwon signal 15

On Wednesday 03 March 2004 14:34, Jason Hihn wrote:
> Thank you Luciano!
> I'll get around to building your newest version in a day or two, for now
I'm
> busy testing the last successful build I had (Without SSL, though SSL is
> desired)
> 
> PS. What did you use to figure out the problem?

The new snapshot is not much different. In fact the only significant
difference
is probably the change of the klibloader assert() to a more lenient
kdError().
 
The assert problem has happened to me too, but I have not much time 
currently to look after it in depth. For the curious, here are the 
missing symbols:

PKCS7_content_free
OpenSSL_add_all_algorithms
OpenSSL_add_all_algorithms_conf
OpenSSL_add_all_algorithms_noconf

Konqueror seems to open https sites well enough, even with these 
missing symbols. I don't know if this will pose security problems.

I'll have to check recent kde3.1 libraries to see if the ssl handling has 
changed to accomodate newer OpenSSL versions.

However, I'd like to move to the kde3.2 code base as soon as possible,
as the newer konqueror seems to be much better under many perspectives
(except, sadly, binary size).

Luciano 
_______________________________________________
konq-e mailing list
konq-e at kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/konq-e