In message <36801de60bb64636a97247641981693c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 01:18:39 +0000, "Zarlenga.Mike" <Mike.Zarlenga@xxxxxxx> said: Mike.Zarlenga> Has anyone on this mailing list gone through the steps necessary to Mike.Zarlenga> build OpenSSL 1.1.0f with the old filenames (libeay and ssleay)? Generally speaking, it's a bad idea. The 1.1.0 libraries aren't ABI backward compatible with the older versions. Therefore, we decided for a new naming scheme that includes the version we claim to keep being backward compatible. I would suggest that, rather than trying to fit things back to a naming scheme that no longer works, you fit your building procedures to the new scheme when building against OpenSSL 1.1.0 and on. The plan is that the names will be 'libcrypto-1_1.dll' and 'libssl-1_1.dll' for 32-bit and 'libcrypto-1_1-x64.dll' and 'libssl-1_1-x64.dll' for 64-bit for all 1.1.x OpenSSL versions. (which means that whenever 1.2.0 comes out, there will be a 'libcrypto-1_2.dll' and so on... I expect it will take a number of years before we get there) Note, btw, that the import libraries on Windows are simply called libcrypto.lib and libssl.lib from OpenSSL 1.1.0 and on. That will most likely not change at all for the far future. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levitte@xxxxxxxxxxx OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
