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:
kim.grasman> > In message
on Thu, 15
Sep 2016 12:17:12 +0200, Kim Gräsman said:
kim.grasman> >
kim.grasman> > kim.g
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 integrating OpenSSL 1.1 in our tree, and I
> noticed the
> kim.grasman> Windows build system now produces decorated lib
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 source to allow static and dynami
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> >
jb-openssl> > on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:17:12 +0200, Kim Gräsman
jb-openssl> > said:
jb
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
kim.grasman> Windows build system now produces decorated lib names.
For DLLs, yes.
kim.grasman> Th
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 decorated lib names.
For DLLs, yes.
kim.grasman> The general pattern seems to be lib_[-].lib wher
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
analysis, for example.
But do yo
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 no
