Hello,
Pierre Ossman:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:28:12 +0300
> Martin Paljak wrote:
>
>> On 05.10.2009, at 11:01, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>>> New attempt, this time against r3756 (r18006 was our internal repo,
>>> for
>>> those curious :)), as an attachment and without a signature on the
>>> mail. Hop
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:28:12 +0300
Martin Paljak wrote:
>
> On 05.10.2009, at 11:01, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> > New attempt, this time against r3756 (r18006 was our internal repo,
> > for
> > those curious :)), as an attachment and without a signature on the
> > mail. Hopefully everyone can read
On 05.10.2009, at 11:01, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> New attempt, this time against r3756 (r18006 was our internal repo,
> for
> those curious :)), as an attachment and without a signature on the
> mail. Hopefully everyone can read it this time.
Applies and works for me.
> Oh yeah, I also forgot to
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 11:00:16 +0300
Martin Paljak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can't use it:
>
> $ patch -p0 < ../pkcs11.diff
> patching file src/pkcs11/framework-pkcs15.c
> patch: malformed patch at line 10: struct pkcs15_prkey_object {
>
> Please provide a new patch against trunk (which is not @ r1
Hi,
I can't use it:
$ patch -p0 < ../pkcs11.diff
patching file src/pkcs11/framework-pkcs15.c
patch: malformed patch at line 10: struct pkcs15_prkey_object {
Please provide a new patch against trunk (which is not @ r18006) as an
attachment.
Thanks,
Martin
On 02.10.2009, at 16:29, Pierre
The logic in the current PKCS#11 library could not handle more advanced
cards where it would incorrectly group objects into slots. This patch
fixes two such issues:
- A key pair can be used for multiple certificates, but a certificate
can never use more than one key pair. Unfortunately the cod
