But if one is using a shell to launch that binary, then IMO there are two userland binaries: the shell and the binary being launched. In that case, the second binary depends on the first.
Lets assume one really wants to use only a single binary for whatever reason. Could she use busybox? Does busybox have an openssl-like function? I am not sure.
However I can confirm that the BSD equivalent of busybox can easily be compiled, statically, to include an http client, openssl and the other utilities needed for these shell scripts. I use such a binary for daily work.
Note I am not a LetsEncrypt user and have no comment on ACME or these shell scripts or other programs. I am only commenting as an avid shell scripter and user of static, "multi-call" binaries.
But if one is using a shell to launch that binary, then IMO there are two userland binaries: the shell and the binary being launched. In that case, the second binary depends on the first.
Lets assume one really wants to use only a single binary for whatever reason. Could she use busybox? Does busybox have an openssl-like function? I am not sure.
However I can confirm that the BSD equivalent of busybox can easily be compiled, statically, to include an http client, openssl and the other utilities needed for these shell scripts. I use such a binary for daily work.
Note I am not a LetsEncrypt user and have no comment on ACME or these shell scripts or other programs. I am only commenting as an avid shell scripter and user of static, "multi-call" binaries.