OpenSSL Beta 2, report of successful migration

[Dr Paul Dale]

Thanks!

The OpenSSL team has wondered how many people were trying out 3.0 during 
the beta period without any way of knowing for sure.  That you've had 
what seems like a fairly smooth transition is wonderful.


Pauli

On 2/8/21 8:10 pm, Olivier Mascia via openssl-users wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just wanted to report that our private code update to move on from OpenSSL 1.1.1 to 3.0 Beta 2 is successful.
> It revolved around replacing some code still using RSA_ apis directly by proper EVP_PKEY_ apis, and some other minor details. Nothing too fancy after some effort understanding the new recipes.
>
> On the side of SSL communications, we have found *nothing* to update in our code, and though deep testing is still ongoing for some days, there are apparently no side-effects.  Of course our use-case exercises only a very partial set of the whole toolkit. But as people generally only report problems, I thought like reporting success, for a change.
>
> I though have a question, regarding Windows binaries.
> (We build our own for x86/amd64 using the documented procedure, the compilers installed are Visual Studio 2019, with latest updates).
>
> I take it (might be wrong, because the build scripts are complex to me) that the naming convention of binaries for OpenSSL 3 on Windows platform is like this:
>
> 	libcrypto-3.dll (and libssl-3.dll)		for the 32 bits (release) builds
> 	libcrypto-3-x64.dll (and libssl-3-x64.dll)	for the 64 bits (release) builds
>
> Is this naming convention intended to be stable over the 3.x life?  Or would it change for things like libcrypto-3.1.dll (or the like) with releases like 3.1.x?
>
> __
> Best Regards, Meilleures salutations, Met vriendelijke groeten, Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> Olivier Mascia
>
>