On 07/01/2014 11:50 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
Our soon-to-be-released roadmap has this to say on supported platform:
* Currency, i.e. a platform is widely deployed and in current use
* Vendor support
* Available to the dev team, i.e. the dev team have access to a
suitable environment in which to
On 2 July 2014 13:33, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/01/2014 11:50 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
Our soon-to-be-released roadmap has this to say on supported platform:
* Currency, i.e. a platform is widely deployed and in current use
* Vendor support
* Available to the dev team,
On 07/02/2014 02:44 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
I strongly suggest to add 8 bit chars and 32 bit ints as an additional
requirement. There is some idea that 16-bit platforms (such as MS-DOS or
Windows prior to the Win32 API) are still supported, but this is clearly not
the case because a lot of
: den 30 juni 2014 23:43
To: pwal...@au1.ibm.com
Cc: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: [openssl.org #1610] OS400 patches
Very old release, unsupported platform. Closing ticket. G'day, mate.
__
OpenSSL Project
On 1 July 2014 06:52, Zoltan Arpadffy z...@polarhome.com wrote:
Hi,
I see that Rich is doing a fantastic job by cleaning up the backlog...
I absolutely agree that very old releases cannot be supported, but what about
the platforms?
I thought until now, that as long there are developers who
On 1 July 2014 10:50, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote:
On 1 July 2014 06:52, Zoltan Arpadffy z...@polarhome.com wrote:
Hi,
I see that Rich is doing a fantastic job by cleaning up the backlog...
I absolutely agree that very old releases cannot be supported, but what
about the platforms?
I
Hi,
With the second criteria Vendor Support,
M$ will dictate easily the openssl roadmap (?!?!?),
and, indirectly,
will force any openssl win-XX users to migrate to their last wonderful
products.
Clearly, above common sense, Vendor support is not a proper criteria
to offer something like
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 12:37:31PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
I just started to wonder, will soon come the time when my patches
will be also refused with the unsupported platform comment?
Our soon-to-be-released roadmap has this to say on supported platform:
* Currency, i.e. a platform
On 1 July 2014 13:37, Pierre DELAAGE delaage.pie...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
With the second criteria Vendor Support,
M$ will dictate easily the openssl roadmap (?!?!?),
and, indirectly,
will force any openssl win-XX users to migrate to their last wonderful
products.
Clearly, above common
Ok, sounds that some logical operator is missing between criteria :
I understood AND
while you suggest it is OR ELSE
Hope you are right...but not sure..
Pierre
Le 01/07/2014 15:42, Felix Laurie von Massenbach a écrit :
On 1 July 2014 13:37, Pierre DELAAGE delaage.pie...@free.fr
I thought until now, that as long there are developers who are willing to
develop for a certain platform and there is some community interest in using
that - the platform will be supported as odd might it be in the Windows and
Linux dominated World.
With the releases now in github, one
Hope you are right...but not sure..
Neither are we. That is why the current roadmap says that we're working on it.
It's important to realize that supporting a platform incurs a cost, and we need
to have some way of making the appropriate trade-offs. Clearly, we don't want
to end up where
Of course supporting a platform is incurring some costs,
...that can be shared with the community:
this is one of its purpose.
I would like to point out that for some platform, devteam could propose
a limited support/usability statement :
Typically, for WCE on which I am regularly working :
Message-
From: owner-openssl-...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl-...@openssl.org] On
Behalf Of Rich Salz via RT
Sent: den 30 juni 2014 23:43
To: pwal...@au1.ibm.com
Cc: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: [openssl.org #1610] OS400 patches
Very old release, unsupported platform. Closing ticket
14 matches
Mail list logo
