New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
On shared library names #1767
On shared library names #1767
Conversation
This is overdue since the addition of the unified build system
@kaduk, I'd be very pleased if you'd read through the added notes to see if they are satisfactory. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I had written something, I probably would have included the strings "libcrypto" and "libssl" in CHANGES, but I don't have a good sense for whether there are people who are familiar with the windows names but not the Unix names.
Regardless, this is nice to have, even as-is -- thanks!
@@ -947,6 +947,31 @@ | |||
where OpenSSL does not know how to build shared libraries the "no-shared" | |||
option will be forced and only static libraries will be created. | |||
|
|||
Shared libraries are named a little different on different platforms. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I might use "differently" ... but I might not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed
@richsalz, I forgot to lable the intended branches. Now done, are you still fine with it? |
Yes. |
This is overdue since the addition of the unified build system Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from #1767)
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from #1767)
Done |
@kaduk informed me that there was no information on the new DLL names on Windows... and except for the git log, he's absolutely correct. This adds the information in
INSTALL
and adds a not to this effect in the entry inCHANGES
that announces the unified build, 'cause that's where this should have been notified from the start.