Re: [openssl-users] Why 1.0.1 AND 1.0.2 ?

2016-09-27 Thread Salz, Rich
(Can you change your mailer to plaintext, or at least get rid of the black-on-grey styling?) > Reading the 1.0.2j CHANGES file, it appears that 1.0.2 was built from 1.0.1l. That might be the time it was branched off from it. At that point, the two releases are different. >And my knowledge

Re: [openssl-users] Why 1.0.1 AND 1.0.2 ?

2016-09-27 Thread Matt Caswell
On 27/09/16 08:52, REIX, Tony wrote: > Reading the 1.0.2j CHANGES file, it appears that 1.0.2 was built from > 1.0.1l. > And there are 1124 of description of the changes for 1.0.2 and about 500 > lines of changes from 1.0.1l to 1.0.1u . > And my knowledge of OpenSSL is VERY VERY small. > >

Re: [openssl-users] Why 1.0.1 AND 1.0.2 ?

2016-09-27 Thread REIX, Tony
Reading the 1.0.2j CHANGES file, it appears that 1.0.2 was built from 1.0.1l. And there are 1124 of description of the changes for 1.0.2 and about 500 lines of changes from 1.0.1l to 1.0.1u . And my knowledge of OpenSSL is VERY VERY small. Looking at 1.0.1l, out of bug fixes, I've found some

Re: [openssl-users] Why 1.0.1 AND 1.0.2 ?

2016-09-26 Thread Salz, Rich
> However, out of more ABIs delivered by 1.0.2 compared to 1.0.1, I do not > understand what is the exact difference between versions 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 . Perhaps look at the CHANGES file in 1.0.2 and see what's been added? 1.0.1 only gets bugfixes, 1.0.2 adds features, but starting with 1.0.2a

[openssl-users] Why 1.0.1 AND 1.0.2 ?

2016-09-26 Thread REIX, Tony
Hi, We (BullFreeware project: http://www.bullfreeware.com/) port OpenSSL on AIX, since ages. Since BullFreeware is not a distro (we do not deliver packages built all-together, rather we deliver RPM packages than may stay un-updated during years), we maintain a compatibility with older