On Wednesday 16 July 2008 14:56:26 Kenneth Goldman wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/16/2008 10:08:31 AM: > > 2) using static builds has a benefit: you know exactly what your > > application is going to get SSL-wise: you will be sure it is installed > > on the target system because you brought it along. The drawback is > > that you have to provide your own update path to track security fixes > > -- that is compared to an OS/platform where others do the tracking and > > updating for you (e.g. active Linux distros with dynamic libraries). > > Is this really a drawback? Since OpenSSL updates break backward > compatibility, there a problem as well with dynamic libraries. > Someone installs an update, possibly automated, possibly the install > of another program, and suddenly you application fails in strange > ways. > > [... my quixotic plea for NEVER breaking backward compatibilty]
Has this ever been (in recent history) an issue within a given release branch? Ie. has 0.9.8(n+1) ever broken apps that were running ok against 0.9.8n? 0.9.8x is of course not backwards compatible with 0.9.7y, and 0.9.9 will not be backwards compatible with 0.9.8 either. But that's why (reputable) distros allow these branches to coexist and be upgraded independently. Cheers, Geoff -- Un terrien, c'est un singe avec des clefs de char... ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
