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:[email protected] Red Hat, Inc.
