Ack! I see there are actually a number of responses I somehow missed. Pardon
my error.
~~RMC
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Richard Conlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anybody have any response on this? Or is there a better list to ask?
>
> ~RMC
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Richard
Anybody have any response on this? Or is there a better list to ask?
~~RMC
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Richard Conlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> So, I have a handful of relatively esoteric questions.
>
> Say I have binaryX that will use both libcrypto and libssl.
>
> 1) Is
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 July 2008 14:56:26 Kenneth Goldman wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/16/2008 10:08:31 AM:
>> > 2) using static builds has a benefit: you know exactly what your
[..]
>> Is this really a drawback? Since
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/17/2008 12:16:18 PM:
> Has this ever been (in recent history) an issue within a given
> release branch?
> Ie. has 0.9.8(n+1) ever broken apps that were running ok against 0.9.8n?
> 0.9.8x is of course not backwards compatible with 0.9.7y, and 0.9.9 will
not
> be backw
Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> But in fact, the original question was about binary compatibility
Sure, and I've no reason to believe binary compatibility has been
broken in 0.9.8. (Though it's something I've never really cared
about.)
[...]
__
On Thursday 17 July 2008 12:26:33 Bruce Stephens wrote:
> Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Has this ever been (in recent history) an issue within a given
> > release branch? Ie. has 0.9.8(n+1) ever broken apps that were
> > running ok against 0.9.8n? 0.9.8x is of course no
Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Has this ever been (in recent history) an issue within a given
> release branch? Ie. has 0.9.8(n+1) ever broken apps that were
> running ok against 0.9.8n? 0.9.8x is of course not backwards
> compatible with 0.9.7y, and 0.9.9 will not be backward
On Wednesday 16 July 2008 14:56:26 Kenneth Goldman wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/16/2008 10:08:31 AM:
> > 2) using static builds has a benefit: you know exactly what your
> > application is going to get SSL-wise: you will be sure it is installed
> > on the target system because you brought
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/16/2008 10:08:31 AM:
> 2) using static builds has a benefit: you know exactly what your
> application is going to get SSL-wise: you will be sure it is installed
> on the target system because you brought it along. The drawback is
> that you have to provide your own up
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Richard Conlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> So, I have a handful of relatively esoteric questions.
>
> Say I have binaryX that will use both libcrypto and libssl.
>
> 1) Is it dangerous to statically link the one and dynamically link the
> other? wha
Greetings!
So, I have a handful of relatively esoteric questions.
Say I have binaryX that will use both libcrypto and libssl.
1) Is it dangerous to statically link the one and dynamically link the
other? what if the versions mismatch?
2) Does anybody know the version of OpenSSL included by defa
11 matches
Mail list logo
