Re: [openssl.org #97] About 0.9.6a(b) and des_encrypt1()
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote: There will not be another release of 0.9.6 before 0.9.7 will be out. We still maintain the 0.9.6 tree, because we anticipate that due to incompatible changes between 0.9.6 and 0.9.7 several people will stay with 0.9.6x for some more time, so we are prepared to release another Perfectly understandable. btw. is there any list of those changes anywhere? Just thinking if there are some issues we should be aware of with PHP's openssl extension.. The change that is required will break binary compatibility between 0.9.6d and 0.9.6e (because that's the purpose of the change :-). Even though we try to make clear that we don't promise binary compatibility, a lot Heh, of course. of people expect it. I am therefore a bit reluctant to make the change and will keep the issue as an open ticket in the request tracker, until 0.9.6e becomes reality or some other member of the team makes a final decision. For me it's okay to close this. I've already told the people who reported this problem to bugs.php.net that this is fixed in openssl 0.9.7.. :) --Jani __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #97] About 0.9.6a(b) and des_encrypt1()
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, [iso-8859-1] Götz Babin-Ebell wrote: Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: Hmm, it feels like it's really time for a rename (basically, change des to DES in all names, and thereby follow the convention used everywhere else in OpenSSL), or this becomes an impossible task. openssl_des_... ? in the sources we can have a #define des_...() openssl_des_...() If a change is going to be made, it makes sense to bring the naming in line with the rest of the code, thus DES_*** makes more sense. (IMHO, IANAL, etc :-) Cheers, Geoff __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #97] About 0.9.6a(b) and des_encrypt1()
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: From: Jani Taskinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] sniper From CHANGES: sniper sniper *) Rename 'des_encrypt' to 'des_encrypt1'. This avoids the clashes sniper with des_encrypt() defined on some operating systems, like Solaris sniper and UnixWare. sniper [Richard Levitte] sniper sniper sniper Just wanted to let you guys know, that also sniper this symbol is in use by Solaris (7), libcrypt: sniper sniper # nm /usr/lib/libcrypt.a | grep des_encrypt sniper U _des_encrypt sniper des_encrypt.o: sniper T _des_encrypt1 sniper W des_encrypt1 sniper 025c T _des_encrypt sniper U _des_encrypt1 sniper 025c W des_encrypt sniper 01bc t des_encrypt_nolock Hmm, it feels like it's really time for a rename (basically, change des to DES in all names, and thereby follow the convention used everywhere else in OpenSSL), or this becomes an impossible task. openssl_des_... ? in the sources we can have a #define des_...() openssl_des_...() By Goetz -- Goetz Babin-Ebell, TC TrustCenter AG, http://www.trustcenter.de Sonninstr. 24-28, 20097 Hamburg, Germany Tel.: +49-(0)40 80 80 26 -0, Fax: +49-(0)40 80 80 26 -126 __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #97] About 0.9.6a(b) and des_encrypt1()
From: Jani Taskinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] sniper From CHANGES: sniper sniper *) Rename 'des_encrypt' to 'des_encrypt1'. This avoids the clashes sniper with des_encrypt() defined on some operating systems, like Solaris sniper and UnixWare. sniper [Richard Levitte] sniper sniper sniper Just wanted to let you guys know, that also sniper this symbol is in use by Solaris (7), libcrypt: sniper sniper # nm /usr/lib/libcrypt.a | grep des_encrypt sniper U _des_encrypt sniper des_encrypt.o: sniper T _des_encrypt1 sniper W des_encrypt1 sniper 025c T _des_encrypt sniper U _des_encrypt1 sniper 025c W des_encrypt sniper 01bc t des_encrypt_nolock Hmm, it feels like it's really time for a rename (basically, change des to DES in all names, and thereby follow the convention used everywhere else in OpenSSL), or this becomes an impossible task. For source compatibility, it's of course perfectly possible to provide macros so older applications don't break immediately. -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-733-72 88 11 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Software Engineer, GemPlus: http://www.gemplus.com/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #97] About 0.9.6a(b) and des_encrypt1()
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote: [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Jun 14 12:02:20 2002]: From CHANGES: *) Rename 'des_encrypt' to 'des_encrypt1'. This avoids the clashes with des_encrypt() defined on some operating systems, like Solaris and UnixWare. [Richard Levitte] Just wanted to let you guys know, that also this symbol is in use by Solaris (7), libcrypt: This problem has been resolved for 0.9.7... Great. Is it worthwile to make a small adjustment for 0.9.6e (in case it will be released)? If 0.9.7 is due to be released soon (?) then I don't think that's necessary..but of course if there will be another release of 0.9.6 then it would be nice to have this in it. --Jani __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #97] About 0.9.6a(b) and des_encrypt1()
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 08:34:06PM +0200, Jani Taskinen via RT wrote: On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote: This problem has been resolved for 0.9.7... Great. Is it worthwile to make a small adjustment for 0.9.6e (in case it will be released)? If 0.9.7 is due to be released soon (?) then I don't think that's necessary..but of course if there will be another release of 0.9.6 then it would be nice to have this in it. There will not be another release of 0.9.6 before 0.9.7 will be out. We still maintain the 0.9.6 tree, because we anticipate that due to incompatible changes between 0.9.6 and 0.9.7 several people will stay with 0.9.6x for some more time, so we are prepared to release another 0.9.6e version, if important bugs are found. It is however not clear, whether there will really be a 0.9.6e release. If 0.9.7 is accepted fast by our user base, it will never appear. The change that is required will break binary compatibility between 0.9.6d and 0.9.6e (because that's the purpose of the change :-). Even though we try to make clear that we don't promise binary compatibility, a lot of people expect it. I am therefore a bit reluctant to make the change and will keep the issue as an open ticket in the request tracker, until 0.9.6e becomes reality or some other member of the team makes a final decision. Best regards, Lutz -- Lutz Jaenicke [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.aet.TU-Cottbus.DE/personen/jaenicke/ BTU Cottbus, Allgemeine Elektrotechnik Universitaetsplatz 3-4, D-03044 Cottbus __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #97] About 0.9.6a(b) and des_encrypt1()
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote: There will not be another release of 0.9.6 before 0.9.7 will be out. We still maintain the 0.9.6 tree, because we anticipate that due to incompatible changes between 0.9.6 and 0.9.7 several people will stay with 0.9.6x for some more time, so we are prepared to release another Perfectly understandable. btw. is there any list of those changes anywhere? Just thinking if there are some issues we should be aware of with PHP's openssl extension.. The change that is required will break binary compatibility between 0.9.6d and 0.9.6e (because that's the purpose of the change :-). Even though we try to make clear that we don't promise binary compatibility, a lot Heh, of course. of people expect it. I am therefore a bit reluctant to make the change and will keep the issue as an open ticket in the request tracker, until 0.9.6e becomes reality or some other member of the team makes a final decision. For me it's okay to close this. I've already told the people who reported this problem to bugs.php.net that this is fixed in openssl 0.9.7.. :) --Jani __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
