[openssl-users] Building libssl and libcrypto, .dlls and .libs, with (ABI compatibility)

[Richard Levitte]

In message <44064b1e7c3c4db094bf63355204f6c3 at RNOP-EXCI05.is.ad.igt.com> on Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:58:09 +0000, "Zarlenga.Mike" <Mike.Zarlenga at IGT.com> said:

Mike.Zarlenga> In message <36801de60bb64636a97247641981693c at RNOP-EXCI05.is.ad.igt.com> on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 01:18:39 +0000, "Zarlenga.Mike" <Mike.Zarlenga at IGT.com> said:
Mike.Zarlenga> 
Mike.Zarlenga> MZ> Has anyone on this mailing list gone through the steps necessary to
Mike.Zarlenga> MZ> build OpenSSL 1.1.0f with the old filenames (libeay and ssleay)?
Mike.Zarlenga> 
Mike.Zarlenga> RL>Generally speaking, it's a bad idea.
Mike.Zarlenga> RL>The 1.1.0 libraries aren't ABI backward compatible with the older versions.
Mike.Zarlenga> 
Mike.Zarlenga> Hi Richard,
Mike.Zarlenga> 
Mike.Zarlenga> Thanks for replying.
Mike.Zarlenga> 
Mike.Zarlenga> Since I'm rebuilding and relinking from source code, do I need to be concerned
Mike.Zarlenga> with ABI backward compatibility?

Depends...

If you're also relinking all applications that use the DLLs, then
fine...  but in that case, I don't see why you bother with DLLs at
all.

What, exactly, do you intend to do with the resulting DLLs?

Mike.Zarlenga> I see that build.info builds the .libs for VMS with a 32/64 suffix, the same naming
Mike.Zarlenga> convention that we're using for 1.0.n, and want to keep in 1.1.n. So, maybe, our
Mike.Zarlenga> best way forward is a small change to build.info in the IF statement for /^VC-/ ?

Yes, the top build.info is the file to make changes in for this.
However, once again, I really do not recommend this.

Cheers,
Richard

-- 
Richard Levitte         levitte at openssl.org
OpenSSL Project         http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/