I can report that using code compiled with 1.0.1c headers against dynamic link libraries from 1.0.0 (from debian) causes reference count errors. I solved this by statically linking openssl-1.0.1c to avoid any mismatch (my recent bugreport about reference count problem is already statically linked so this is not a factor there).
Thus the 1.0.1c .so files should have different version number. If they do not, then that is a bug. Cheers, --Sampo "Thakur, Praveen Kumar" <praveenkumar_tha...@bmc.com> said: > I don't see any issue if .so files extension is 1.0.0. However, I wanted to > confirm that is this a defect with 1.0.1 release? Or am I missing something. > Thanks, > Praveen > From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org > [mailto:owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of karthik kondlada > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:09 PM > To: openssl-users@openssl.org > Subject: Re: libs version are 1.0.0 after compiling openssl 1.0.1c > > Hi Praveen, > > In linux you would expect extension to so files as such you > have received. I think when we use system.loadlibrary method will get errors > so have to execute using system.load method. > > Regards, > kondlada > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Thakur, Praveen Kumar > <praveenkumar_tha...@bmc.com<mailto:praveenkumar_tha...@bmc.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > I have compiled OpenSSL 1.0.1c. After compilation libs which are generated > contains version number as 1.0.0. > > For example: libssl.so.1.0.0, libcrypto.so.1.0.0 > > Is this a defect with OpenSSL 1.0.1c? Ideally library names should have been > libssl.so.1.0.1, libcrypto.so.1.0.1 > > Thanks, > Praveen > > > ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
