Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released - build fail on Solaris 2.5.1
On Sun April 5 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: This is from /openssl-SNAP-20090405 on Solaris x86 ver 2.5.1 using gcc 2.95.3: gcc -I.. -I../.. -I../asn1 -I../evp -I../../include -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -march=pentium -Wall -DL_ENDIAN -DOPENSSL_NO_INLINE_ASM -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_PART_WORDS -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DRMD160_ASM -DAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -R/usr/local/lib:/usr/local/ssl/lib -c -o wp-mmx.o wp-mmx.s Assembler: wp-mmx.s aline 29: Illegal mnemonic aline 29: syntax error aline 29: Illegal register aline 30: Illegal mnemonic aline 30: syntax error aline 30: Illegal register aline 31: Illegal mnemonic aline 31: syntax error aline 31: Illegal register aline 32: Illegal mnemonic aline 32: syntax error aline 32: Illegal register aline 33: Illegal mnemonic aline 33: syntax error aline 33: Illegal register aline 34: Illegal mnemonic aline 34: syntax error aline 34: Illegal register aline 35: Illegal mnemonic aline 35: syntax error aline 35: Illegal register aline 36: Illegal mnemonic aline 36: syntax error aline 36: Illegal register aline 38: Illegal mnemonic aline 38: syntax error aline 38: Illegal register aline 39: Illegal mnemonic aline 39: syntax error aline 39: Illegal register aline 40: Illegal mnemonic Too many errors - Goodbye *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `wp-mmx.o' Current working directory /usr/home/tedm/openssl-SNAP-20090405/crypto/whrlpool *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `subdirs' Current working directory /usr/home/tedm/openssl-SNAP-20090405/crypto *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `build_crypto' I then tried it with the no-asm parameter to config and it got further but blew up here: gcc -I.. -I../.. -I../asn1 -I../evp -I../../include -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -march=pentium -Wall -DL_ENDIAN -march=pentium ??? Does pentium support mmx? My memory seems to be saying that is a pentium-pro feature. Of course, my memory is old and running without ecc or google. Can you get a newer compiler on that box? Or are you stuck with 2.95? Mike -DOPENSSL_NO_INLINE_ASM -R/usr/local/lib:/usr/local/ssl/lib -c camellia.c Assembler: camellia.c aline 1067 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1067 : syntax error aline 1073 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1073 : syntax error aline 1079 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1079 : syntax error aline 1085 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1085 : syntax error aline 1092 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1092 : syntax error aline 1098 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1098 : syntax error aline 1117 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1117 : syntax error aline 1124 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1124 : syntax error aline 2155 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2155 : syntax error aline 2162 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2162 : syntax error aline 2169 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2169 : syntax error aline 2176 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2176 : syntax error aline 2518 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2518 : syntax error aline 2525 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2525 : syntax error aline 2530 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2530 : syntax error aline 2535 : Illegal mnemonic Too many errors - Goodbye *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `camellia.o' Current working directory /usr/home/tedm/openssl-SNAP-20090405/crypto/camellia *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `subdirs' Current working directory /usr/home/tedm/openssl-SNAP-20090405/crypto *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `build_crypto' # Ted OpenSSL wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 OpenSSL version 1.0.0 Beta 1 OpenSSL - The Open Source toolkit for SSL/TLS http://www.openssl.org/ OpenSSL is currently in a release cycle.
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released - build fail on Solaris 2.5.1
This is from /openssl-SNAP-20090405 on Solaris x86 ver 2.5.1 using gcc 2.95.3: gcc -I.. -I../.. -I../asn1 -I../evp -I../../include -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -march=pentium -Wall -DL_ENDIAN -DOPENSSL_NO_INLINE_ASM -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_PART_WORDS -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DRMD160_ASM -DAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -R/usr/local/lib:/usr/local/ssl/lib -c -o wp-mmx.o wp-mmx.s Assembler: wp-mmx.s aline 29: Illegal mnemonic aline 29: syntax error aline 29: Illegal register aline 30: Illegal mnemonic aline 30: syntax error aline 30: Illegal register aline 31: Illegal mnemonic aline 31: syntax error aline 31: Illegal register aline 32: Illegal mnemonic aline 32: syntax error aline 32: Illegal register aline 33: Illegal mnemonic aline 33: syntax error aline 33: Illegal register aline 34: Illegal mnemonic aline 34: syntax error aline 34: Illegal register aline 35: Illegal mnemonic aline 35: syntax error aline 35: Illegal register aline 36: Illegal mnemonic aline 36: syntax error aline 36: Illegal register aline 38: Illegal mnemonic aline 38: syntax error aline 38: Illegal register aline 39: Illegal mnemonic aline 39: syntax error aline 39: Illegal register aline 40: Illegal mnemonic Too many errors - Goodbye *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `wp-mmx.o' Current working directory /usr/home/tedm/openssl-SNAP-20090405/crypto/whrlpool *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `subdirs' Current working directory /usr/home/tedm/openssl-SNAP-20090405/crypto *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `build_crypto' I then tried it with the no-asm parameter to config and it got further but blew up here: gcc -I.. -I../.. -I../asn1 -I../evp -I../../include -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -march=pentium -Wall -DL_ENDIAN -DOPENSSL_NO_INLINE_ASM -R/usr/local/lib:/usr/local/ssl/lib -c camellia.c Assembler: camellia.c aline 1067 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1067 : syntax error aline 1073 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1073 : syntax error aline 1079 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1079 : syntax error aline 1085 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1085 : syntax error aline 1092 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1092 : syntax error aline 1098 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1098 : syntax error aline 1117 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1117 : syntax error aline 1124 : Illegal mnemonic aline 1124 : syntax error aline 2155 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2155 : syntax error aline 2162 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2162 : syntax error aline 2169 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2169 : syntax error aline 2176 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2176 : syntax error aline 2518 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2518 : syntax error aline 2525 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2525 : syntax error aline 2530 : Illegal mnemonic aline 2530 : syntax error aline 2535 : Illegal mnemonic Too many errors - Goodbye *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `camellia.o' Current working directory /usr/home/tedm/openssl-SNAP-20090405/crypto/camellia *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `subdirs' Current working directory /usr/home/tedm/openssl-SNAP-20090405/crypto *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `build_crypto' # Ted OpenSSL wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 OpenSSL version 1.0.0 Beta 1 OpenSSL - The Open Source toolkit for SSL/TLS http://www.openssl.org/ OpenSSL is currently in a release cycle. The first beta is now released. The beta release is available for download via HTTP and FTP from the following master locations (the various FTP mirrors you can find under http://www.openssl.org/source/mirror.html): o http://www.openssl.org/source/ o ftp://ftp.openssl.org/source/ The file names of the beta are: o openssl-1.0.0-beta1.tar.gz MD5 checksum: 49f265d9dd8dc011788b34768f63313e SHA1 checksum: 89b4490b6091b496042b5fe9a2c8a9015326e446
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
That's a Layer 1/2 issue. Perhaps you mean RFC 3514? -- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mw...@iupui.edu Friends don't let friends publish revisable-form documents. pgpD1Wm4j9Cwx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
Assuming it's not a joke, what's the meaning of a 1.0 as opposed to 0.9.something. My hope is that you'll say the API is frozen and that there's a commitment not to break backward compatibility in future releases. -- Ken Goldman kg...@watson.ibm.com 914-784-7646 (863-7646)
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009, Kenneth Goldman wrote: Assuming it's not a joke, what's the meaning of a 1.0 as opposed to 0.9.something. My hope is that you'll say the API is frozen and that there's a commitment not to break backward compatibility in future releases. Here's an outline of the reasons... A problem which has always been apparent with the current OpenSSL version scheme is that there are three needs... 1. Bug fixes (including security issues). 2. New features which retain binary compatibility. 3. Major development and revision which may not retain binary compatibility and may obsolete old or broken APIs. We only had two numbers to play with and bug fixes and new features were both tied into the letter revisions (0.9.8j-0.9.8k) and so on. Major development was performed by changing the last number i.e. 0.9.8-0.9.9. The reason why there is a need to have new features independent of major development is mainly based on timescale. Type #3 releases only happen every few years largely because making big API changes regularly is not an option. So if there is a need for a new feature it can be added in a type #2 release: many people don't want to wait years before some much needed feature is added. For example TLS extensions and CMS support recently. [On a more practical note many of my clients want new features added quickly if possible and that pays the bills] It was decided that we should no longer combine feature and bugfix releases and to do that we revised the versioning scheme. The 0.9.x was a legacy from the SSLeay days so we wanted a clean break and went for 1.0.0 in what would've been 0.9.9. OpenSSL is more than mature enough to have a 1.0 version number anyway. Under this scheme 1. Bug fix releases will change the letter. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.0.0a 2. Feature releases will change the last (minor) number. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.0.1 3. Major development will change the second (major) number. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.1.0 So effectively we are freezing the API and not (knowingly) making any changes which will break applications until the 1.1.0 release which on past experience will be some years away. We can't freeze the API indefintely because it would effectively halt major development. Some parts of the API are just too inflexible to support what we may want to do in future. Steve. -- Dr Stephen N. Henson. Email, S/MIME and PGP keys: see homepage OpenSSL project core developer and freelance consultant. Homepage: http://www.drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
* Dr. Stephen Henson wrote on Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 13:01 +0200: [...] Under this scheme 1. Bug fix releases will change the letter. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.0.0a 2. Feature releases will change the last (minor) number. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.0.1 3. Major development will change the second (major) number. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.1.0 Is the new scheme really 1.[major].[minor][letter] this would be different to the probably common [major].[minor].[...] scheme (which does not need confusing letters at all :)). BTW, I think after 0.9.9 the natural successor could be 0.9.10 or 0.10.0. oki, Steffen End of message. ---8=== About Ingenico: Ingenico is the world’s leading provider of payment solutions, with over 15 million terminals deployed across the globe. Delivering the very latest secure electronic payment technologies, transaction management and the widest range of value added services, Ingenico is shaping the future direction of the payment solutions market. Leveraging on its global presence and local expertise, Ingenico is reinforcing its leadership by taking banks and businesses beyond payment through offering comprehensive solutions, a true source of differentiation and new revenues streams. This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:01 +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote: snip Under this scheme 1. Bug fix releases will change the letter. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.0.0a 2. Feature releases will change the last (minor) number. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.0.1 3. Major development will change the second (major) number. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.1.0 random thoughts How do you call the first number then, or what must happen to change it? Compared to other packages, an usual versioning scheme is: packagename-major.minor.micro: changing micro for bugfixes. changing minor for added features. changing major for major development. So far it's identical to what you do, except that they omit what you have as first number. And they do 'micro' versioning with numbers too. When using letters, how would you call the 27th bugfix release? Even if I can live with, I just don't really like the letter. If you need to have 'major' as the _second_ number, then I prefer having 'micro' as the fourth number. /random thoughts Just my 0.02, don't want to force anything... /haubi/ __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
On Wed April 1 2009, Geoff Thorpe wrote: On Wednesday 01 April 2009 09:05:05 Thomas J. Hruska wrote: The problem is that I was under the distinct impression 0.9.9 was the next release and 1.0.0 was a pipe dream a few years down the road (at least). The choice of a 1.0 release is to clearly mark the fact that openssl is shifting to a common base platform, namely Java. Platform independence is going to make future development much easier, but represents a significant enough change to warrant the new major version. This decision has been driven by increasing demands to support as-yet unsupported platforms; primarily Amiga, Z80, Casiotone, and Windows. I realize that progress in the security field is slow - but will this new release support rfc1149? http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149 That was published back in '90 - it should be well vetted by now. Mike Regards, Geoff __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:01:48AM -0500, Michael S. Zick wrote: I realize that progress in the security field is slow - but will this new release support rfc1149? http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149 That's a hardware layer, below IP. SSL is well above that, over TCP. If your operating system supports rfc1149, you should be able to use OpenSSL on it transparently (there is a patch for Linux here: http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/). That was published back in '90 - it should be well vetted by now. Vetted? Does that consist in vaccination of the transport layer against the flu? Y. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
On Thu April 2 2009, Yves Rutschle wrote: On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:01:48AM -0500, Michael S. Zick wrote: I realize that progress in the security field is slow - but will this new release support rfc1149? http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149 That's a hardware layer, below IP. SSL is well above that, over TCP. If your operating system supports rfc1149, you should be able to use OpenSSL on it transparently (there is a patch for Linux here: http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/). Thanks for the link - I missed that one. That was published back in '90 - it should be well vetted by now. Vetted? Does that consist in vaccination of the transport layer against the flu? (???) I only noticed that myself after making the post. I am afraid you got me on that question. I was wondering if they have been able to clean up the audit trail. Maybe a special wrapper for the transport layer? Mike Y. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:01:00PM +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote: It was decided that we should no longer combine feature and bugfix releases and to do that we revised the versioning scheme. The 0.9.x was a legacy from the SSLeay days so we wanted a clean break and went for 1.0.0 in what would've been 0.9.9. OpenSSL is more than mature enough to have a 1.0 version number anyway. This is marvelous news! Thanks. I was just thinking about a follow-up post to the announcement, requesting separation of feature and bug-fix releases with 1.0.0 as a golden opportunity to do this, and I very pleased to see that you beat me to the punch. Under this scheme 1. Bug fix releases will change the letter. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.0.0a 2. Feature releases will change the last (minor) number. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.0.1 3. Major development will change the second (major) number. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.1.0 So effectively we are freezing the API and not (knowingly) making any changes which will break applications until the 1.1.0 release which on past experience will be some years away. There are of course other numbering conventions, but this is unimportant, provided a consistent choice is made and adhered to. The proposal above is closer in spirit to previous OpenSSL releases, so I can see the logic of it, especially because of the internal API version bitmasks used by applications. Congratulations, this is a major step forward. -- Viktor. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
On Thu April 2 2009, Victor Duchovni wrote: On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:01:00PM +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote: It was decided that we should no longer combine feature and bugfix releases and to do that we revised the versioning scheme. The 0.9.x was a legacy from the SSLeay days so we wanted a clean break and went for 1.0.0 in what would've been 0.9.9. OpenSSL is more than mature enough to have a 1.0 version number anyway. This is marvelous news! Thanks. I was just thinking about a follow-up post to the announcement, requesting separation of feature and bug-fix releases with 1.0.0 as a golden opportunity to do this, and I very pleased to see that you beat me to the punch. Under this scheme 1. Bug fix releases will change the letter. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.0.0a 2. Feature releases will change the last (minor) number. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.0.1 3. Major development will change the second (major) number. E.g. 1.0.0 - 1.1.0 isn't that: 3. API breakers: 1.0.0 - 1.1.0 4. Major development: 1.0.0 - 2.0.0 That way you can make forward progress past the API breakage when working towards Major development (whatever that is). It also assigns a significance to the leading number rather than it just being eye-candy. Mike So effectively we are freezing the API and not (knowingly) making any changes which will break applications until the 1.1.0 release which on past experience will be some years away. There are of course other numbering conventions, but this is unimportant, provided a consistent choice is made and adhered to. The proposal above is closer in spirit to previous OpenSSL releases, so I can see the logic of it, especially because of the internal API version bitmasks used by applications. Congratulations, this is a major step forward. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 16:34:35 Rene Hollan wrote: This is an April Fools' joke, right? It's April 2, so I can reply now. Z80. Java. Casiotone. Doesn't the question sort of answer itself? Cheers, Geoff -Original Message- From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org on behalf of Geoff Thorpe Sent: Wed 4/1/2009 12:11 PM To: openssl-users@openssl.org Subject: Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released On Wednesday 01 April 2009 09:05:05 Thomas J. Hruska wrote: The problem is that I was under the distinct impression 0.9.9 was the next release and 1.0.0 was a pipe dream a few years down the road (at least). The choice of a 1.0 release is to clearly mark the fact that openssl is shifting to a common base platform, namely Java. Platform independence is going to make future development much easier, but represents a significant enough change to warrant the new major version. This decision has been driven by increasing demands to support as-yet unsupported platforms; primarily Amiga, Z80, Casiotone, and Windows. Regards, Geoff -- Un terrien, c'est un singe avec des clefs de char... __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009, Geoff Thorpe wrote: On Wednesday 01 April 2009 16:34:35 Rene Hollan wrote: This is an April Fools' joke, right? It's April 2, so I can reply now. Z80. Java. Casiotone. Doesn't the question sort of answer itself? Personally I think mentioning Windows gave it away... Steve. -- Dr Stephen N. Henson. Email, S/MIME and PGP keys: see homepage OpenSSL project core developer and freelance consultant. Homepage: http://www.drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
On Thursday 02 April 2009 11:24:56 Dr. Stephen Henson wrote: On Thu, Apr 02, 2009, Geoff Thorpe wrote: On Wednesday 01 April 2009 16:34:35 Rene Hollan wrote: This is an April Fools' joke, right? It's April 2, so I can reply now. Z80. Java. Casiotone. Doesn't the question sort of answer itself? Personally I think mentioning Windows gave it away... Exactly. I mean porting to Z80 is far-fetched, but porting to Windows?!?! I mean, OpenSSL is about *security* - porting it to windows is like fetching a saddle after the horse has bolted... Cheers, Geoff PS: :-), I was responding to a post by someone involved in win32 openssl, so there was no shortage of clues... -- Un terrien, c'est un singe avec des clefs de char... __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 OpenSSL version 1.0.0 Beta 1 OpenSSL - The Open Source toolkit for SSL/TLS http://www.openssl.org/ OpenSSL is currently in a release cycle. The first beta is now released. The beta release is available for download via HTTP and FTP from the following master locations (the various FTP mirrors you can find under http://www.openssl.org/source/mirror.html): o http://www.openssl.org/source/ o ftp://ftp.openssl.org/source/ The file names of the beta are: o openssl-1.0.0-beta1.tar.gz MD5 checksum: 49f265d9dd8dc011788b34768f63313e SHA1 checksum: 89b4490b6091b496042b5fe9a2c8a9015326e446 The checksums were calculated using the following command: openssl md5 openssl-1.0.0-beta1.tar.gz openssl sha1 openssl-1.0.0-beta1.tar.gz Please download and test them as soon as possible. This new OpenSSL version incorporates 107 documented changes and bugfixes to the toolkit (for a complete list see http://www.openssl.org/source/exp/CHANGES). Reports and patches should be sent to openssl-b...@openssl.org. Discussions around the development of OpenSSL should be sent to openssl-...@openssl.org. Anything else should go to openssl-us...@openssl.org. The best way, at least on Unix, to create a report is to do the following after configuration: make report That will do a few basic checks of the compiler and bc, then build and run the tests. The result will appear on screen and in the file testlog. Please read the report before sending it to us. There may be problems that we can't solve for you, like missing programs. Oh and to those who have noticed the date... the joke is that it isn't a joke. Yours, The OpenSSL Project Team... Mark J. Cox Ben Laurie Andy Polyakov Ralf S. Engelschall Richard Levitte Geoff Thorpe Dr. Stephen Henson Bodo Möller Ulf Möller Lutz JänickeNils Larsch -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBSdNEV6LSm3vylcdZAQIc4gf+Ki9AQzfwES4Up5QRKJCONzIvgIzHpajQ laGz0L6QQXcMrSrLxubSMfYnnXqX/BfY67C28dLaefEK9xygZMxvbS5d56hm3+3m SWLWXqHsCrxp4LWm3Kr7senmhBl06LCTYX1AC2VP0ph/UfouQPu15UkuMCt6eDV7 SEUkYDk6TA8Wr7C0nMHnTOQdqx6r/N7OnPEaCCWkMzsMC5KxTkCP9/SGrDam29dt xV6P5+AntSgNbr9tXYAiQHgMvut9o1O8pTaGdlv2TJ/Ua2ynvmd8hsaO7Ptl3Tpt Bkaghk+rV3qZgLzWAiHjeebEWyXTSGvMPKM6r5mi8vrqjfbSF4zUKA== =qESg -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
OpenSSL wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 OpenSSL version 1.0.0 Beta 1 OpenSSL - The Open Source toolkit for SSL/TLS http://www.openssl.org/ OpenSSL is currently in a release cycle. The first beta is now released. The beta release is available for download via HTTP and FTP from the following master locations (the various FTP mirrors you can find under http://www.openssl.org/source/mirror.html): Oh and to those who have noticed the date... the joke is that it isn't a joke. Yours, The OpenSSL Project Team... The problem is that I was under the distinct impression 0.9.9 was the next release and 1.0.0 was a pipe dream a few years down the road (at least). Given these conditions, no one is going to believe you just because it IS April 1st. Awfully legitimate looking though. You really should have waited a whole 24 hours for this announcement, assuming it is legit. If this is legit, you're going to have to re-announce it tomorrow (and change the release date on the website). Releasing and announcing real software on April Fool's is a no-no in any marketing book. Releasing fake software would definitely take April Fool's Day jokes to a whole new level. -- Thomas Hruska Shining Light Productions Home of BMP2AVI, Nuclear Vision, ProtoNova, and Win32 OpenSSL. http://www.slproweb.com/ __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
I will simply remind you of the following piece of the (signed) announcement: Oh and to those who have noticed the date... the joke is that it isn't a joke. -Kyle H __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
Kyle Hamilton wrote: I will simply remind you of the following piece of the (signed) announcement: Oh and to those who have noticed the date... the joke is that it isn't a joke. -Kyle H Doesn't matter if it is signed (I noticed that, BTW). April 1st is all about looking as legit as possible and pulling the big one. The team will still have to re-announce tomorrow. Releasing legitimate news of a product on April 1 (or any holiday for that matter) is a marketing/advertising snafu of gigantic proportions. The entire week that follows a legit April 1 announcement is wasted cleaning up the mess created in its wake. Waiting 24 hours to make such a big release and announcement probably wouldn't kill the team. I wouldn't believe a 0.9.9 release today either, but it would have been less of a stretch of the imagination. -- Thomas Hruska Shining Light Productions Home of BMP2AVI, Nuclear Vision, ProtoNova, and Win32 OpenSSL. http://www.slproweb.com/ __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 09:05:05 Thomas J. Hruska wrote: The problem is that I was under the distinct impression 0.9.9 was the next release and 1.0.0 was a pipe dream a few years down the road (at least). The choice of a 1.0 release is to clearly mark the fact that openssl is shifting to a common base platform, namely Java. Platform independence is going to make future development much easier, but represents a significant enough change to warrant the new major version. This decision has been driven by increasing demands to support as-yet unsupported platforms; primarily Amiga, Z80, Casiotone, and Windows. Regards, Geoff -- Un terrien, c'est un singe avec des clefs de char... __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
RE: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
This is an April Fools' joke, right? -Original Message- From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org on behalf of Geoff Thorpe Sent: Wed 4/1/2009 12:11 PM To: openssl-users@openssl.org Subject: Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released On Wednesday 01 April 2009 09:05:05 Thomas J. Hruska wrote: The problem is that I was under the distinct impression 0.9.9 was the next release and 1.0.0 was a pipe dream a few years down the road (at least). The choice of a 1.0 release is to clearly mark the fact that openssl is shifting to a common base platform, namely Java. Platform independence is going to make future development much easier, but represents a significant enough change to warrant the new major version. This decision has been driven by increasing demands to support as-yet unsupported platforms; primarily Amiga, Z80, Casiotone, and Windows. Regards, Geoff -- Un terrien, c'est un singe avec des clefs de char... __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org winmail.dat
