On 2012-01-03, at 11:59, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 11:23:34AM -0800, Tim Rice wrote: >> >> I notice the shared library names (and SONAME) are 1.0.0 on the >> OpenSSL 1.0.1 libraries. > > 1.0.0? That seems wrong. The shared library major number should > probably stay the same, but the minor number increase - unless the > intention is that binaries built against the *1.0.1* shared libs > be often run with the 1.0.0 shared libs.
That sort of config would cause it to NEVER load the 1.0.1 libraries, always looking for a filename involving 1.0.0 Logically, depending on where the API is stable/constant, the SONAME maybe should be 1.0, with soft links from the libXX.so.1.0 -> libXX.so.1.0.1 .. I'm referring to the old design where the filename/SONAME/softlink was used/intended to allow some backward compatibility or bring in a shim. I know we all know that, I'm mentioning it for the backing logic to my comment. Tim, what platform are you on? Is this behaviour common cross-target or only Tim's platform? Allan
