On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <openssl-us...@dukhovni.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:12:41AM -0500, Ken Goldman wrote: > >> My experience is that you should not expect binary compatibility. >> Since errors will often be in little used corner cases, it's safer >> to always recompile. > > Please do not spread FUD, the OpenSSL project made a commitment a > while back to ensure binary compatibility in patch releases and > IIRC also micro releases. Thus all 1.0.Nx releases should be binary > compatible, at least for the same value of N, and likely across all > values of N. Not trying to start a little war here.....
Binary compatibility can be tricky, and it brings up all the old wounds of Microsoft's COM. Are you claiming there is binary compatibility among tool vendors? For example, can I build the base with GCC, and then build patches with ICC? How about different versions of the same tool chain (GCC 4.6 and 4.7)? This type of interoperability caused a lot of problems in the past. I tend to agree with Ken and just perform the re-compile. Its not worth the aggravation. Jeff ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
