> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl- > us...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of Thomas J. Hruska > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:08 PM > To: openssl-users@openssl.org > Subject: Re: Win32OpenSSL.html > > On 6/20/2012 11:12 AM, John wrote: > > "John A. Wallace" <jw72...@verizon.net> wrote in message > > news:<00a701cd4f01$2b569ab0$8203d010$@net>... > >> Hello. > >> > >> In this instance I am using 64-bit Win7 on a laptop in a home > network. > >> When > >> I downloaded this version of OpenSSL > >> http://slproweb.com/download/Win64OpenSSL_Light-1_0_1c.exe, during > >> installation it alerted me about not finding but needing the Visual > >> C++ 2008 > >> Redistributable. I was a bit surprised to see this alert because I > >> could see that I already had several other such Redistributables > >> installed on my system. These are what I currently had: > >> > >> Microsoft Visual C++ 2008 Redistributable - x64 9.0.30729.17 > >> Microsoft Visual C++ 2008 Redistributable - x64 9.0.30729.4148 > >> Microsoft Visual C++ 2008 Redistributable - x64 9.0.30729.6161 > > >> Apparently, this version of OpenSSL required a different one, so I > >> went online hunting down what I could find along these lines until > >> coming across another one that seemed to suffice, namely, this one: > >> > >> Microsoft Visual C++ Redistributable - x64 9.0.21022 > >> > > In fairness I should add to this explanation that I did in fact see > on > > the same website where a number of versions of the “C++ 2008 > > Redistributable” were also available for download. Even so, when I > > clicked on the download link of the one identified as the correct > > version for my installation, it directed me to a Microsoft download > > site on which it stated that the system requirements for this > > particular version included a number of other operating systems, but > > it did not include mine. Therefore, I was not sure about whether it > > was appropriate for my situation. It turns out that it was > sufficient, > > but, again, the Microsoft instructions were not adequately prepared > for efficiency. Thanks. > > > > John > > The installer does a very rudimentary check for a specific registry > entry. If it doesn't exist, it assumes the necessary VC++ runtimes are > not installed. The runtimes on the website are the correct ones. I'm > using them just fine here on Win7. Haven't tried the Win8 beta yet but > nothing critical really changed there (except maybe the introduction of > ARM). > > There are three solutions to the problem of the VC++ runtimes: > > 1) Bundle the VC++ runtimes with the installer and bloat the installer > (ugh). > > 2) Link to the VC++ runtimes from the webpage and detect from the > installer (meh). It works well enough for most people and reduces the > download size significantly. > > 3) The OpenSSL devs switch the highly annoying /MD flag to something > else that doesn't create bloated dependencies on the VC++ runtimes > (yay). I've been wanting this change for YEARS because /MD is a > terrible flag to use for the DLLs. The result of a default build is > that it forms an unwanted set of dependencies. The most likely reason > for /MD is VS6. But VS6 is *ancient*. There is also no way to control > the flag from the command-line except to string replace the makefiles. > > I opted for #2. #3 is the best solution but it requires the devs to do > something and they don't like us Windows users. >
Thomas, please pardon the delay in my sending a response to you. Yes, I agree, your solution is clearly the best option overall. Now, as for those who do not like Windows users, well then we just have to tolerate their oversight. :) In my opinion, 64-bit Win7 takes a back seat to none other and it surely owes no apology. Thanks, again, for all your outstanding assistance. John ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
