Hi Damjan,
+1 for upgrading OpenSSL, at least for trunk/AOO42X.
That said, I can not estimate if this is an "easy" fix...
Regards,
Matthias
Am 17.03.24 um 18:42 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
Hi
Is there some reason we are still using such an old version of OpenSSL?
>From what I see, these
Hi
Is there some reason we are still using such an old version of OpenSSL?
>From what I see, these are the modules that depend on OpenSSL:
$ grep -l openssl */prj/build.lst
curl/prj/build.lst
oox/prj/build.lst
openssl/prj/build.lst
python/prj/build.lst
redland/prj/build.lst
ucb/prj/build.lst
But 4.1.x is specifically targeted for older hardware... Anyway, this all may
be moot and that change matters not a whit. I'm just going through all commits
that touch Linux, no matter how softly.
> On Oct 22, 2020, at 11:27 AM, Don Lewis wrote:
>
> On 22 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
On 22 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Regarding this commit:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/8d4c92f789718b2f73ea62d487811a0c9d476739
>
> why the change
>
> - CONFIGURE_ACTION=Configure linux-generic64
> + CONFIGURE_ACTION=Configure linux-x86_64 no-dso no-shared $(NO_ASM)
Hi Jim,
Am 22.10.20 um 16:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Regarding this commit:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/8d4c92f789718b2f73ea62d487811a0c9d476739
>
> why the change
>
> - CONFIGURE_ACTION=Configure linux-generic64
> + CONFIGURE_ACTION=Configure linux-x86_64 no-dso
Regarding this commit:
https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/8d4c92f789718b2f73ea62d487811a0c9d476739
why the change
- CONFIGURE_ACTION=Configure linux-generic64
+ CONFIGURE_ACTION=Configure linux-x86_64 no-dso no-shared $(NO_ASM)
that seems a major change to how we build
DonLewisFreeBSD merged pull request #92:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/92
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above
On 21 Aug, Don Lewis wrote:
> On 22 Aug, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Am 21.08.20 um 23:55 schrieb Don Lewis:
>>> On 21 Aug, GitBox wrote:
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #92:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/92#issuecomment-678517434
Shouldn't that be
On 22 Aug, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Am 21.08.20 um 23:55 schrieb Don Lewis:
>> On 21 Aug, GitBox wrote:
>>> Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #92:
>>> URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/92#issuecomment-678517434
>>>
>>>
>>>Shouldn't that be 1.0.2t in /main/openssl/version.mk?
Am 21.08.20 um 23:55 schrieb Don Lewis:
> On 21 Aug, GitBox wrote:
>> Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #92:
>> URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/92#issuecomment-678517434
>>
>>
>>Shouldn't that be 1.0.2t in /main/openssl/version.mk?
>>(The same applies to trunks and
On 21 Aug, GitBox wrote:
>
> Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #92:
> URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/92#issuecomment-678517434
>
>
>Shouldn't that be 1.0.2t in /main/openssl/version.mk?
>(The same applies to trunks and AOO42X)
Probably if it's actually used anywhere.
Pilot-Pirx edited a comment on pull request #92:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/92#issuecomment-678517434
Shouldn't that be 1.0.2t in /main/openssl/version.mk?
(The same applies to trunk and AOO42X)
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #92:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/92#issuecomment-678517434
Shouldn't that be 1.0.2t in /main/openssl/version.mk?
(The same applies to trunks and AOO42X)
This is
DonLewisFreeBSD opened a new pull request #92:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/92
Upgrade to openssl-1.0.2t.
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on
14 matches
Mail list logo
