In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 27 Jan 2003 22:40:24
+0100 (MET), " via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
rt> Currently, on many Unix platforms I link my application against
rt> libssl.so and libcrypto.so. Typically, these are links set to resolve
rt> down to the versioned types of these files, like libssl.so.0.9.7 and
rt> libcrypto.so.0.9.7. The internal names of these shared objects
rt> include the major and minor version so even though I link against the
rt> shared objects without the version, such as libssl.so, my application
rt> becomes tied to the versioned shared objects at link time, for
rt> instance libssl.so.0.9.7.
There's a reason: until OpenSSL 1, we don't guarantee backward binary
compatibility. There are technical reasons for this, like the need to
make changes to published structures (it may be argued that it
shouldn't be needed, but to achieve such flexibility, we either need
to hide them (which would require huge changes for everyone) or redo
them in such a way that they become rather generic) and other stuff.
Because of this, we're forced to do what we currently do with shared
libraries. Perhaps you'd prefer that your applications crash
mysteriously and in an unrecoverable manner?
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
