On Feb 11, 2011, at 5:46 AM, Robert Story wrote:
Hello,
I'm running an client/server application over DTLS, which works great
locally, but when we started testing over the net, things got a little
wacky. It appears that there is an issue somewhere with
fragmentation/reassembly. I'm getting
Hi,
I'm wondering what your plan is with version numbering and
changing sonames for future versions of the library. With
the 1.0.0 release you made it libssl.so.1.0.0 (and
libcrypto.so.1.0.0).
Current CVS HEAD seems to be having 1.1.0 as part of it's soname,
OpenSSL_1_0_1-stable still has
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:01:01PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'm planning on uploading a version based on 1.0.0 to Debian
soon. And I would like to keep the current soname for the
rest of the release cycle. The transition from 0.9.7 to 0.9.8
took over 2 years. I also had to support both
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 03:56:53PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:01:01PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'm planning on uploading a version based on 1.0.0 to Debian
soon. And I would like to keep the current soname for the
rest of the release cycle. The
On Feb 11, 2011, at 8:18 PM, Robert Story wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:05:51 +0100 Michael wrote:
MT I'm running an client/server application over DTLS, which works great
MT locally, but when we started testing over the net, things got a little
MT wacky. It appears that there is an issue
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:41:54PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
One of my problems with openssl is that changing compile time
options break the ABI. And people don't seem to be willing to
change this.
With every version I upload to Debian I do check for possible
problems before I upload it
Hi, Any possibility of getting a reply to this? We need to satisfy our
lawyers. :-)
Lisa
-Original Message-
From: The default queue via RT [mailto:r...@openssl.org]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 1:42 AM
To: Mitchell, Lisa
Subject: [openssl.org #2446] AutoReply: Need
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 22:47:24 +0100 Michael wrote:
MT So the problem occurs when 1.0.0 is communicating with 1.0.0, right?
correct.
MT Robin will look into it when he's back from vacation...
Ok... would that be a US-type 1-2 week vacation, or a European-type 1
month vacation? :-)
--
Senior
