On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: > Actually, this is intentional, and we're warning people about this > regularly. To summarise: the OpenSSL team does not currently > guarantee backward binary compatibility, and we have said numerous > times that we will only start keeping compatibility at version 1.0.
Ah, OK. In that case it should be clearly marked in the Makefile and bogus symlinks should not get installed. I'll prepare another patch and send it once I have it. > Furthermore, the shared library support is currently only > *experimental*, for the same reason. That's not the only one as I understand... > So, you're correct, shared libraries are pointless except in the > following two points: > > 1. if several programs are linked against libcrypto.so.0.9.6b, for > example, you save memory compared to have several programs link > to it statically. Of course -- that is a win, anyway, as long as you don't have various software linked against different versions of libraries. Since a lot of programs depend on SSL these days, you'll probably end up in such a situation sooner or later. > 2. the development of the shared library building methods is going > slowly, so you can see the current experimental status as a > preparation for the time where we (hopefully) *will* support > shared libraries, i.e. starting at version 1.0 Well, you may use libtool for 1.0 as you promise in the FAQ and get rid of the problem (or rather shift it to a common place). I'm somewhat familiar with libtool, so I might help. > Thanks for your contribution still. You are welcome, Maciej -- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], PGP key available + ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
