This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: MAINTAINERS: New OpenSSL 0.9.8 release
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:41:55 +0200
- Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS: New OpenSSL 0.9.8 release
- References: <3.0.5.32.20050706233017.00b6cd90@incoming.verizon.net> <87oe9fm6so.fsf@vzell-de.de.oracle.com> <42CD03DE.7060009@familiehaase.de> <20050707104314.GH9051@calimero.vinschen.de> <42D4504F.5040005@familiehaase.de>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Jul 13 01:20, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> >On Jul 7 12:28, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> >
> >>Wouldn't it be useful to use another name for the openssl DLL like I did
> >>for perl (cygperl-5.8.dll instead of including the micro version)?
> >
> >
> >Can you elaborate, please? If you mean that the DLL should be
> >just named 0.9 instead of differing between 0.9.7 and 0.9.8, etc,
> >then the answer is no. As I mentioned already, the versions are
> >not binary compatible. You can't expect all applications linked
> >against 0.9.7 to run under 0.9.8, and this was already the case
> >when the step from 0.9.6 to 0.9.7 has been made. Compatible
> >versions are marked by a trailing character. The next binary
> >compatible bugfix release will be name 0.9.8a, then 0.9.8b, etc.
> >In this case, the name of the DLL will be kept the same, of course.
> >Btw., this isn't Cygwin specific, but the same situation on all
> >platforms. Blame the version scheme of OpenSSL (even the core
> >developers aren't happy with it).
>
>
> As long as you use cygssl-0.9.8 (in case its compatible) even when
> the version is at 0.9.17, then ok. And in case that it is an
> upstream *thing*, then forget what I said.
Done ;-)
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.