[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> I received a bad tar archive... I don't know if that problem was only mine or
> it was received badly by all the community, in case, can you re-send it to
> the list (or at least to me ?).
>
Maybe just you. It wasn't a tar archive anyway even though it had a .tar
While scanning the libary for remaining include filenames without
the openssl/ prefix, I noticed that crypto/cryptall.h doesn't make any
sense at all. Ever since 0.6.6b (possibly earlier) this header file
included a file "meth.h", which I could not find anywhere in neither
that nor the current li
"Titchener, Tom" wrote:
>
> >Who wants to write a simple S/MIME tool, able to >decrypt, verify, sign,
> >crypt any mail, so I can use it as a PINE filter? ;-)
>
> You can use the pkcs#7 patch I sent last week to do
> the sign/verify bit. Then you just need to fix it up
> to encrpyt/decrypt and
> My recommendation is to build for the generic case, and document the
> optimizations available for each platform, and why someone would want
> to (or not want to) use them. Slow and working is always preferable to
> a fast crash.
Let me explain why we need the CPU version:
OpenSSL contains opt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
At 16:29 23.04.99 +0200, you wrote:
>Since there seems to be mostly agreement to the change to
> (including a "Yes, please!!!" sent via private mail -
:),
>I'll commit the appropriate changes tonight unless somone vetoes
very
>quickly. In addition to the actua
Oops. I didn't mean to send that to the list (and it is wrong, too--in
order to check the version header you'd have to find it first.)
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing L
Ulf Möller wrote:
> sysctl -n hw.model exists on FreeBSD as well, but it prints the string
> "Pentium" there. Makes me wonder how it calls i486 and Pentium II. The
> man page is not particularly helpful. (I'll make it a check for Pentium*
> for now. If someone knows the right way, let me know.)
b
> echo "`sysctl -n hw.model | sed
>'s,.*\(.\)86-class.*,i\186,'`-whatever-netbsd"; exit 0
Thanks!
The FreeBSD:*:*:*486* and NetBSD:*:*:*486* entries are bogus, right?
sysctl -n hw.model exists on FreeBSD as well, but it prints the string
"Pentium" there. Makes me wonder how it calls i4
> I'll commit the appropriate changes tonight unless somone vetoes very
> quickly. In addition to the actual #includes, many Makefile.ssl's
> need a tiny change, Makefile.org needs a couple of tiny changes; so
> does mk1mf.pl (I verified building the changed library with
Und OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMB
> You can't do that: it means the other dependencies aren't valid when the
> Makefile is parsed. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
Uh, right.
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Deve
On Fri, Apr 23, 1999 at 02:21:12AM +0200, Bodo Moeller wrote:
> [...] Now whether /usr/local/include/openssl is a link or a
> directory with copies of all the files doesn't really make a
> difference, what counts is that the name-space makes sense.
Since there seems to be mostly agreement to the
Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> Ulf Möller wrote:
> >
> > People get confused by the make links output. So I think Configure
> > should print out something reassuring after make links is done.
> >
> > I also wonder if it wouldn't be enough to create the links only if
> > the include directory is empty.
> >
Hi! I do realize that I'm concentrating on wrong matters (after all,
blowfish is never used by SSL applications), but I couldn't abstain from
commenting:-) First of I fail to understand why #define BF_PTR2 would
perform better than the last "generic" version. The one that performs
best on Alpha:
Ulf Möller wrote:
>
> People get confused by the make links output. So I think Configure
> should print out something reassuring after make links is done.
>
> I also wonder if it wouldn't be enough to create the links only if
> the include directory is empty.
>
> I would also prefer to have a "
When compiling OpenSSL (current) and defining SIXTY_FOUR_BIT, the
preprocessor define BN_ULLONG is undefined (see comment in file
include/bn.h line 119). That results in an error when compiling
crypto/bn/bn_div.c:
bn_div.c 215: [error]: CFE1020 Identifier "BN_ULLONG" not defined
etc.
Why is B
At 01:01 23.04.99 +0200, you wrote:
>>Any comments / additions ?
>
>The question is what to do about name conflicts with applications.
>For example an application might also definite "bool".
Drop it ?
Since it is only defined on sun/sparc it seems to be a bad idea
to define it at all...
By
Goe
16 matches
Mail list logo
