In message <44064b1e7c3c4db094bf63355204f6c3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:58:09 +0000, "Zarlenga.Mike" <Mike.Zarlenga@xxxxxxx> said: Mike.Zarlenga> In message <36801de60bb64636a97247641981693c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 01:18:39 +0000, "Zarlenga.Mike" <Mike.Zarlenga@xxxxxxx> 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 levitte@xxxxxxxxxxx OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
