unsubscribe openssl-users -----Original Message----- From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of Leonardo Laface de Almeida Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:35 PM To: openssl-users@openssl.org Subject: RES: Openssl versions compability
-----Mensagem original----- De: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org] Em nome de Ken Goldman Enviada em: quarta-feira, 23 de janeiro de 2013 13:13 Para: openssl-users@openssl.org Assunto: Re: Openssl versions compability On 1/23/2013 9:51 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > 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. My issue was much simpler. Can I replace a 1.0.0 dll or .so with 1.0.1 without doing anything to my application? ______________________________________________________________________ It's exactly this I want to know. Can I replace the *.dll or *.so without doing anything? What about recompile the application? Will I need to change anything in it before recompile? Thanks. Leonardo ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org :��I"Ϯ��r�m���� (����Z+�K �+����1���x ��h����[�z�(����Z+� ��f�y������ �f���h��)z{,���
