> I notice the shared library names (and SONAME) are 1.0.0 on the > OpenSSL 1.0.1 libraries.
It's unfortunate and should have been taken care of at 1.0.0 release. I mean it should have been 1.0 or 10 or something. > I'd just like verification that this is intentional and we can expect > binaries built against the 1.0.0 shared libs to run fine using the > 1.0.1 shared libs. Incompatibilities will be treated as bugs, so I'd in fact encourage test with binaries compiled with 1.0.0. To answer the specific question numbering is not really intentional and should be fixed. It doesn't give freedom to choose more intuitive 1.0 or 10, so presumably we are stuck with 1.0.0. On side note, Redhat for one uses own numbering for lib[crypto|ssl].so and should adhere to same number when upgrading to 1.0.1. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
