On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:43:53AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >[Redirected to cygwin-apps] > >On Feb 24 16:28, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 01:55:33PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: >> >According to Tom Hall on 2/24/2007 1:40 PM: >> >>I think there's a bug in the Cygwin setup >> >> >> >>The problem turned out to be that the version of mutt.exe I got was >> >>looking for /usr/bin/cygcrypto-0.9.7.dll and /usr/bin/cygssl-0.9.7.dll >> >>but setup.exe sent me /usr/bin/cygcrypto-0.9.8.dll and >> >>/usr/bin/cygssl-0.9.8.dll. After copying the .7 versions from another >> >>machine, mutt seems to be working fine :-). >> > >> >Actually, it means that Corinna's statement that "None of the packages >> >in the Cygwin net distribution is built against openssl 0.9.7 anymore." >> >in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2007-02/msg00016.html is wrong. >> >The mutt maintainer needs to upload a new package in order to correct >> >this. Meanwhile, I will let Corinna or the mutt maintainer decide if >> >the mutt setup.hint should be adjusted to point to openssl097 >> >compatibility package instead of openssl. >> >> I'm in the process of generating a new mutt package now. > >Ok, now the mutt package requires openssl097, which will work better for >setup, but that's not the solution. Openssl 0.9.8 is part of the Cygwin >distro since July 2005. > >I don't remember the history here, but for the mutt package I have two >maintainers in my list, Gary and cgf, cgf with a question mark. > >Can anybody of you two please upload a new mutt version which links >against openssl 0.9.8?
Uh. What part of "I'm in the process of generating a new mut package now" was unclear? cgf
