On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:12:36AM -0500, Ken Goldman wrote:
> On 1/23/2013 9:51 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> >Binary compatibility can be tricky, and it brings up all the old
> >wounds of Microsoft's COM. Are you claiming there is binary
> >compatibility among tool vendors? For example, can I build the base
> >with GCC, and then build patches with ICC? How about different
> >versions of the same tool chain (GCC 4.6 and 4.7)? This type of
> >interoperability caused a lot of problems in the past.
>
> My issue was much simpler. Can I replace a 1.0.0 dll or .so with
> 1.0.1 without doing anything to my application?
The OpenSSL team promised some time back to make 1.N.Mx patches
feature-free (bug fixes only) and to make 1.N.M releases contain
only binary-compatible feature enhancements for fixed N. ABI changes
are supposed to require a change in the minor number of the library.
So yes, this is expected to work unless someone messed up, there could
also be bugs in the implementation other than ABI changes, but I would
be comfortable upgrading with a recompile after a reasonable test
period.
--
Viktor.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
