Re: Building libssl and libcrypto, .dlls and .libs, with (ABI compatibility)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Building libssl and libcrypto, .dlls and .libs, with (ABI compatibility)

Zarlenga.Mike
In message <[hidden email]> on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 01:18:39 +0000, "Zarlenga.Mike" <[hidden email]> said:

MZ> Has anyone on this mailing list gone through the steps necessary to
MZ> build OpenSSL 1.1.0f with the old filenames (libeay and ssleay)?

RL>Generally speaking, it's a bad idea.
RL>The 1.1.0 libraries aren't ABI backward compatible with the older versions.

Hi Richard,

Thanks for replying.

Since I'm rebuilding and relinking from source code, do I need to be concerned
with ABI backward compatibility?

I see that build.info builds the .libs for VMS with a 32/64 suffix, the same naming
convention that we're using for 1.0.n, and want to keep in 1.1.n. So, maybe, our
best way forward is a small change to build.info in the IF statement for /^VC-/ ?

Regards,
M Zarlenga

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is the property of International Game Technology PLC and/or its subsidiaries and may contain proprietary, confidential or trade secret information. This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please delete this message from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Building libssl and libcrypto, .dlls and .libs, with (ABI compatibility)

Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker-2
In message <[hidden email]> on Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:58:09 +0000, "Zarlenga.Mike" <[hidden email]> said:

Mike.Zarlenga> In message <[hidden email]> on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 01:18:39 +0000, "Zarlenga.Mike" <[hidden email]> 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         [hidden email]
OpenSSL Project         http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
Loading...