On Jun 24, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Dan S wrote:
> less headache static linking to SSLEAY32 and LIBEAY32 :), depending on how
> many windows versions you want to support, static linking to WS2_32 and
> CRYP32 may also be useful (though linking all 4 nearly tripled the binary for
> what we needed to
less headache static linking to SSLEAY32 and LIBEAY32 :), depending on how
many windows versions you want to support, static linking to WS2_32 and
CRYP32 may also be useful (though linking all 4 nearly tripled the binary
for what we needed to have included), but don't have to worry about what
versi
On Jun 23, 2016, at 1:44 PM, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> On 23/06/2016 18:25, Russ Loucks wrote:
>> We have an application running on Windows 8.1 (HP) tablets that is mostly
>> statically linked except for a few libraries, including the SSLEAY32 and
>> LIBEAY32 libraries.
>>
>> We're using version 1.
On 23/06/2016 18:25, Russ Loucks wrote:
We have an application running on Windows 8.1 (HP) tablets that is
mostly statically linked except for a few libraries, including the
SSLEAY32 and LIBEAY32 libraries.
We're using version 1.0.2 of the OpenSSL libraries.
We ship our executable and these t
We have an application running on Windows 8.1 (HP) tablets that is mostly
statically linked except for a few libraries, including the SSLEAY32 and
LIBEAY32 libraries.
We're using version 1.0.2 of the OpenSSL libraries.
We ship our executable and these two libraries and then set a PATH entry in
