In message <44064b1e7c3c4db094bf63355204f...@rnop-exci05.is.ad.igt.com> on Tue,
27 Jun 2017 15:58:09 +, "Zarlenga.Mike" said:
Mike.Zarlenga> In message
<36801de60bb64636a972476419816...@rnop-exci05.is.ad.igt.com> on Mon, 26 Jun
2017 01:18:39 +, "Zarlenga.Mike" said:
Mike.Zarlenga>
Mike.Zarlenga> MZ> Has anyone on this mailing list gone through the steps
necessary to
Mike.Zarlenga> MZ> build OpenSSL 1.1.0f with the old filenames (libeay and
ssleay)?
Mike.Zarlenga>
Mike.Zarlenga> RL>Generally speaking, it's a bad idea.
Mike.Zarlenga> RL>The 1.1.0 libraries aren't ABI backward compatible with the
older versions.
Mike.Zarlenga>
Mike.Zarlenga> Hi Richard,
Mike.Zarlenga>
Mike.Zarlenga> Thanks for replying.
Mike.Zarlenga>
Mike.Zarlenga> Since I'm rebuilding and relinking from source code, do I need
to be concerned
Mike.Zarlenga> with ABI backward compatibility?
Depends...
If you're also relinking all applications that use the DLLs, then
fine... but in that case, I don't see why you bother with DLLs at
all.
What, exactly, do you intend to do with the resulting DLLs?
Mike.Zarlenga> I see that build.info builds the .libs for VMS with a 32/64
suffix, the same naming
Mike.Zarlenga> convention that we're using for 1.0.n, and want to keep in
1.1.n. So, maybe, our
Mike.Zarlenga> best way forward is a small change to build.info in the IF
statement for /^VC-/ ?
Yes, the top build.info is the file to make changes in for this.
However, once again, I really do not recommend this.
Cheers,
Richard
--
Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users