Re: [openssl-dev] OpenSSL version 1.0.1q released (corrected download)

2015-12-03 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
--On Thursday, December 03, 2015 11:28 AM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: After adding "make depend" to occur before "make all", it now succeeds. However, this worked on prior releases, so it seems that requiring "make depend" is new to 1.0.1q. Filed this via RT this

Re: [openssl-dev] OpenSSL version 1.0.1q released (corrected download)

2015-12-03 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
--On Thursday, December 03, 2015 7:18 PM + Matt Caswell wrote: On 03/12/15 19:10, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: make[5]: *** No rule to make target `../../include/openssl/idea.h', needed by `e_idea.o'. Stop. Hmmm. I don't get that. Can you post your build steps?

Re: [openssl-dev] OpenSSL version 1.0.1q released (corrected download)

2015-12-03 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
This build is still busted: build@u1290:~/p4/zimbra/main/ThirdParty/openssl/src$ md5sum openssl-1.0.1q.tar.gz 54538d0cdcb912f9bc2b36268388205e openssl-1.0.1q.tar.gz make[5]: Entering directory `/home/build/p4/zimbra/main/ThirdParty/openssl/tmp/UBUNTU12_64/zimbra-openssl/crypto/evp' gcc

Re: [openssl-dev] OpenSSL version 1.0.1q released (corrected download)

2015-12-03 Thread Matt Caswell
On 03/12/15 19:10, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > make[5]: *** No rule to make target `../../include/openssl/idea.h', > needed by `e_idea.o'. Stop. Hmmm. I don't get that. Can you post your build steps? Matt ___ openssl-dev mailing list To

Re: [openssl-dev] OpenSSL version 1.0.1q released (corrected download)

2015-12-03 Thread Matt Caswell
On 03/12/15 19:28, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Thursday, December 03, 2015 7:18 PM + Matt Caswell > wrote: > >> >> >> On 03/12/15 19:10, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: >>> make[5]: *** No rule to make target `../../include/openssl/idea.h', >>> needed by `e_idea.o'.

Re: [openssl-dev] OpenSSL version 1.0.1q released (corrected download)

2015-12-03 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
--On Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:51 PM + Matt Caswell wrote: So it does explicitly tell you to run "make depend". I'm not sure I'd call it a regression that you got away with it before!! I would say it is a regression because it worked for all prior 1.0.1[a-p], and