On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Jakob Bohm <jb-open...@wisemo.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/2016 14:44, Kim Gräsman wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Michael Wojcik
>> <michael.woj...@microfocus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My advice, frank
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Michael Wojcik
wrote:
>
> My advice, frankly, is to study the OpenSSL build process until you
> understand it. We've had
> issues in the past with some Windows Perl implementations (currently we use
> Cygwin Perl with
> a wrapper
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Ajay Garg wrote:
>
> Is compiling on windows always such a pain? :(
> On Linux, it compiled perfectly the first time itself.
It's worked well for me in a similar environment. I use DLL builds,
though, so `ntdll.mak` instead of `nt.mak`.
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Michel wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> As nmake is not in your current path, it looks like you didn’t launch the
> ‘Developer Command Prompt for Visual Studio’.
>
>
>
>
>
For posterity, I've gotten that message even when nmake is on the path.
Invoking
Hi Ernst,
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Ernst Maurer wrote:
> Thank you for the reply,
> I've tried to build dynamic version (import lib + dll) so I see the libs
> like:
> openssl.lib
> libcrypto.lib
> capi.lib
> and some other ones,
>
> so do you mean that libeay32
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Michael Wojcik
<michael.woj...@microfocus.com> wrote:
>> From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf
>> Of Kim Gräsman
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 07:04
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:2
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>> Any chance that OpenSSL 1.1 is different in this regard?
>
> No.
>
> Except that the install-top is simpler to configure.
Thanks, Rich. Yeah, I'm looking forward to the 1.1 build system!
- Kim
--
openssl-users mailing
Hi Michael,
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Michael Wojcik
<michael.woj...@microfocus.com> wrote:
>> From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf
>> Of Kim Gräsman
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 04:14
>>
>> Everything seem
Hi all,
I'm working on building OpenSSL 1.0.2 for both Windows x86 and AMD64,
i.e. the VC-WIN32 and VC-WIN64A platforms.
Everything seems to work pretty well, but one thing is worrying -- the
opensslconf.h header comes out different between the two builds.
I'm assuming this only affects
Hi Richard,
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Richard Levitte <levi...@openssl.org> wrote:
> In message
> <CANt7B+feUe2W7627Nrw5bVOnZ1Wb5uQ4z57=ry9lwe7d0b2...@mail.gmail.com> on Thu,
> 15 Sep 2016 12:17:12 +0200, Kim Gräsman <kim.gras...@gmail.com> said:
&
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Thomas J. Hruska
wrote:
>
> The precompiled binary installer variants do this already. If you are using
> default builds, then that's possibly an option.
We prefer to build from source to allow static and dynamic code
Hi all,
I'm looking at integrating OpenSSL 1.1 in our tree, and I noticed the
Windows build system now produces decorated lib names.
The general pattern seems to be lib_[-].lib where
is only appended for 64-bit builds.
We'd prefer a naked lib name, at least for import libs (the DLL names
are
12 matches
Mail list logo