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
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
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
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)
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
* 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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
