On Thursday 17 July 2008 12:26:33 Bruce Stephens wrote: > Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > > 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. > > I suspect an application using PKCS12_create and passing a non-NULL > name will segfault on 0.9.8h. (I confess I've not actually tried > that---I've only tried with an application built against 0.9.8h.) > > However, I guess (presuming the problem really exists, and I didn't > mess up somehow) that's more a bug than a binary incompatibility.
yep, bugs are why 0.9.8x gets followed by 0.9.8y :-) > 0.9.8g (IIRC) broke source compatibility in the sense that at least > some C++ compilers don't accept some of the headers. Right, which would also be a bug. But in fact, the original question was about binary compatibility - ie. the analogous question would not be whether a C++ app could be built against 0.9.8g headers, but whether the pre-built app can link and run against 0.9.8g shared-libs *if* it had been built against 0.9.8f headers (and had been running ok with 0.9.8f shared-libs, aside from the bugs that 0.9.8g is supposed to fix). 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]
