From jkordani at lsa2.com Fri Oct 14 14:20:16 2016 From: jkordani at lsa2.com (Joshua Kordani) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:20:16 -0400 Subject: Windows support lately Message-ID: <90a94e4b-3c71-1ac8-0a79-8c3ad16e041d@lsa2.com> Greetings all. As it seems cl+ssl is being included in more projects by default, and as I continue to have to support windows, I am wondering what the state of support is for windows on 64 bit platforms. It looks like on first glance that particular library names are expected (and 32 bit versions at that) which are not found in the suggested windows binary download location. The note on that website is that openssl 1.1.0 recently underwent a change that looks like it requires library users to recompile. Implementing and supporting cffi based libraries is new to me, while it is something I would like to become more familiar with, I would appreciate any pointers or feedback from anyone who has walked this path before. Cheers! Joshua Kordani From luismbo at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 14:35:45 2016 From: luismbo at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Lu=C3=ADs_Oliveira?=) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:35:45 +0100 Subject: Windows support lately In-Reply-To: <90a94e4b-3c71-1ac8-0a79-8c3ad16e041d@lsa2.com> References: <90a94e4b-3c71-1ac8-0a79-8c3ad16e041d@lsa2.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Joshua Kordani wrote: > As it seems cl+ssl is being included in more projects by default, and as I > continue to have to support windows, I am wondering what the state of > support is for windows on 64 bit platforms. It looks like on first glance > that particular library names are expected (and 32 bit versions at that) > which are not found in the suggested windows binary download location. The > note on that website is that openssl 1.1.0 recently underwent a change that > looks like it requires library users to recompile. Works for me on 64-bit ACL 9 + Windows 10. FWIW, it seems like I'm using the 1.0 series. Cheers, -- Lu?s Oliveira http://kerno.org/~luis/ From jkordani at lsa2.com Fri Oct 14 14:39:51 2016 From: jkordani at lsa2.com (Joshua Kordani) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:39:51 -0400 Subject: Windows support lately In-Reply-To: References: <90a94e4b-3c71-1ac8-0a79-8c3ad16e041d@lsa2.com> Message-ID: On 10/14/16 10:35 AM, Lu?s Oliveira wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Joshua Kordani wrote: >> As it seems cl+ssl is being included in more projects by default, and as I >> continue to have to support windows, I am wondering what the state of >> support is for windows on 64 bit platforms. It looks like on first glance >> that particular library names are expected (and 32 bit versions at that) >> which are not found in the suggested windows binary download location. The >> note on that website is that openssl 1.1.0 recently underwent a change that >> looks like it requires library users to recompile. > Works for me on 64-bit ACL 9 + Windows 10. FWIW, it seems like I'm > using the 1.0 series. > > Cheers, > Thanks, I'll give it a try. From jkordani at lsa2.com Fri Oct 14 14:51:07 2016 From: jkordani at lsa2.com (Joshua Kordani) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:51:07 -0400 Subject: Windows support lately In-Reply-To: References: <90a94e4b-3c71-1ac8-0a79-8c3ad16e041d@lsa2.com> Message-ID: <38c23935-b239-a89c-33f0-dda81eb06258@lsa2.com> On 10/14/16 10:35 AM, Lu?s Oliveira wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Joshua Kordani wrote: >> As it seems cl+ssl is being included in more projects by default, and as I >> continue to have to support windows, I am wondering what the state of >> support is for windows on 64 bit platforms. It looks like on first glance >> that particular library names are expected (and 32 bit versions at that) >> which are not found in the suggested windows binary download location. The >> note on that website is that openssl 1.1.0 recently underwent a change that >> looks like it requires library users to recompile. > Works for me on 64-bit ACL 9 + Windows 10. FWIW, it seems like I'm > using the 1.0 series. > > Cheers, > It seems like when I use the 1.0.2j installer and opt to install the libraries into the windows system folder that the libraries are able to be found. but when I try to get cffi to look for them in a special directory, no dice. This isn't a problem with this library, but man I'd like to get to the point where I can bundle these windows dlls and ship them with the code... Is this something you normally do? or do you require end users to install the dependencies themselves? Josh From luismbo at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 15:12:05 2016 From: luismbo at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Lu=C3=ADs_Oliveira?=) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:12:05 +0100 Subject: Windows support lately In-Reply-To: <38c23935-b239-a89c-33f0-dda81eb06258@lsa2.com> References: <90a94e4b-3c71-1ac8-0a79-8c3ad16e041d@lsa2.com> <38c23935-b239-a89c-33f0-dda81eb06258@lsa2.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Joshua Kordani wrote: > It seems like when I use the 1.0.2j installer and opt to install the > libraries into the windows system folder that the libraries are able to be > found. but when I try to get cffi to look for them in a special directory, > no dice. This isn't a problem with this library, but man I'd like to get to > the point where I can bundle these windows dlls and ship them with the > code... Is this something you normally do? or do you require end users to > install the dependencies themselves? At $WORK we place the DLLs in the same folder as our application binaries. That is one of the places (besides the system folder, as you've found out) where Windows looks for DLLs when you ask it. Cheers, -- Lu?s Oliveira http://kerno.org/~luis/ From jkordani at lsa2.com Fri Oct 14 15:44:27 2016 From: jkordani at lsa2.com (Joshua Kordani) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:44:27 -0400 Subject: Windows support lately In-Reply-To: References: <90a94e4b-3c71-1ac8-0a79-8c3ad16e041d@lsa2.com> <38c23935-b239-a89c-33f0-dda81eb06258@lsa2.com> Message-ID: On 10/14/16 11:12 AM, Lu?s Oliveira wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Joshua Kordani wrote: >> It seems like when I use the 1.0.2j installer and opt to install the >> libraries into the windows system folder that the libraries are able to be >> found. but when I try to get cffi to look for them in a special directory, >> no dice. This isn't a problem with this library, but man I'd like to get to >> the point where I can bundle these windows dlls and ship them with the >> code... Is this something you normally do? or do you require end users to >> install the dependencies themselves? > At $WORK we place the DLLs in the same folder as our application > binaries. That is one of the places (besides the system folder, as > you've found out) where Windows looks for DLLs when you ask it. > > Cheers, > Yes it seems that the issue is that when windows goes to resolve dll locations it uses the path. Sorry for the noise, just found this behavior from googling..... Josh