On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 08:11:30PM +0100, Andy Polyakov wrote:
It's unfortunate and should have been taken care of at 1.0.0 release. I
mean it should have been 1.0 or 10 or something.
I'd just like verification that this is intentional and we can expect
binaries built against the 1.0.0
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 08:11:30PM +0100, Andy Polyakov wrote:
It's unfortunate and should have been taken care of at 1.0.0 release. I
mean it should have been 1.0 or 10 or something.
I'd just like verification that this is intentional and we
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 08:11:30PM +0100, Andy Polyakov wrote:
I notice the shared library names (and SONAME) are 1.0.0 on the
OpenSSL 1.0.1 libraries.
It's unfortunate and should have been taken care of at 1.0.0 release. I
mean it should have been 1.0 or 10 or something.
I'd just like
Incompatibilities will be treated as bugs, so I'd in fact encourage test
with binaries compiled with 1.0.0. To answer the specific question
numbering is not really intentional and should be fixed.
To answer the specific question is confusing and I'd like to clarify.
Numbering is totally
I notice the shared library names (and SONAME) are 1.0.0 on the
OpenSSL 1.0.1 libraries.
It's unfortunate and should have been taken care of at 1.0.0 release. I
mean it should have been 1.0 or 10 or something.
I'd just like verification that this is intentional and we can expect
binaries
I notice the shared library names (and SONAME) are 1.0.0 on the
OpenSSL 1.0.1 libraries.
I'd just like verification that this is intentional and we can expect
binaries built against the 1.0.0 shared libs to run fine using the
1.0.1 shared libs.
Thanks.
--
Tim Rice
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 11:23:34AM -0800, Tim Rice wrote:
I notice the shared library names (and SONAME) are 1.0.0 on the
OpenSSL 1.0.1 libraries.
1.0.0? That seems wrong. The shared library major number should
probably stay the same, but the minor number increase - unless the
intention is
On 2012-01-03, at 11:59, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 11:23:34AM -0800, Tim Rice wrote:
I notice the shared library names (and SONAME) are 1.0.0 on the
OpenSSL 1.0.1 libraries.
1.0.0? That seems wrong. The shared library major number should
probably stay the same,
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012, Allan Clark wrote:
Logically, depending on where the API is stable/constant, the SONAME maybe
should be 1.0, with soft links from the libXX.so.1.0 - libXX.so.1.0.1 .. I'm
referring to the old design where the filename/SONAME/softlink was
used/intended to allow some
