[stunnel-users] Static Version Built?

Hal Vaughan hal at thresholddigital.com
Wed Mar 15 17:48:55 CET 2006

On Wednesday 15 March 2006 02:48, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> Okay, I think I have a static version of Stunnel now.  Thanks to help
> and answers from Jan and Keven!
> I did this:
> ./configure --with-ssl=/usr --enable-static --disable-shared
> --disable-libwrap
> I'm not sure about the "--with-ssl" option, but it didn't seem to
> want to work without it.
> So I have a few questions:
> 1) How can I be sure it is static?
> 2) If it isn't static and I run it on a system that does not have all
> it needs, will it give me errors immediately, or only if a subroutine
> needs a library that isn't there.
> 3) Does the "--disable-libwrap" or anything else remove any features?

I got a few answers on this.  From what I understand, yes, this removes 
features, but those are features that aren't needed on the client end, 
which is no problem for me, since the static version will only be used 
as a client.

> 4) Does using the "--with-ssl" option make it use the libs on my
> system and make it non-static?

It turns out it was a typo (that's what I get for trying it at 2:30 
am!), and it compiles without the "--with-ssl" option.  I'll be testing 
this later today and looking up this on Google, but what features am I 
losing on the client by not using this option?  And does using it make 
the compiled version dependant on those libraries?  I take it that the 
compiler is not just taking those libraries and incorporating them into 
the binary if I use "--enable-static" and "--disable-shared".  Is that 

Thanks again for those that have helped, like Kevin, Jan, and John.  It 
looks like I'm finally getting close to what I need!  Getting this 
working will save me hours on many occasions.


More information about the stunnel-users mailing list