In message
on Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:43:37 +0200, Kim Gräsman said:
kim.grasman> Hi Richard,
kim.grasman>
kim.grasman> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Richard Levitte
wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Richard Levitte wrote:
> In message
> on Thu,
> 15 Sep 2016 12:17:12 +0200, Kim Gräsman said:
>
> kim.grasman> I'm looking at
On 9/15/2016 8:17 AM, Kim Gräsman wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Thomas J. Hruska
wrote:
The precompiled binary installer variants do this already. If you are using
default builds, then that's possibly an option.
We prefer to build from
In message <1446abd3-1599-24fe-1340-fc7f3da5e...@wisemo.com> on Fri, 16 Sep
2016 00:12:30 +0200, Jakob Bohm said:
jb-openssl> On 16/09/2016 00:08, Richard Levitte wrote:
jb-openssl> > In message
jb-openssl> >
On 16/09/2016 00:08, Richard Levitte wrote:
In message on
Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:17:12 +0200, Kim Gräsman said:
kim.grasman> I'm looking at integrating OpenSSL 1.1 in our tree, and I noticed
the
In message
on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:17:12 +0200, Kim Gräsman said:
kim.grasman> I'm looking at integrating OpenSSL 1.1 in our tree, and I noticed
the
kim.grasman> Windows build system now produces
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Thomas J. Hruska
wrote:
>
> The precompiled binary installer variants do this already. If you are using
> default builds, then that's possibly an option.
We prefer to build from source to allow static and dynamic code
On 9/15/2016 3:17 AM, Kim Gräsman wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking at integrating OpenSSL 1.1 in our tree, and I noticed the
Windows build system now produces decorated lib names.
The general pattern seems to be lib_[-].lib where
is only appended for 64-bit builds.
We'd prefer a naked lib name, at
Hi all,
I'm looking at integrating OpenSSL 1.1 in our tree, and I noticed the
Windows build system now produces decorated lib names.
The general pattern seems to be lib_[-].lib where
is only appended for 64-bit builds.
We'd prefer a naked lib name, at least for import libs (the DLL names
are