Hi,
I compiled openssl-0.9.2b with BCB3 and 4, so I would, that my
modifications will be applied on original source tree.
Best regards, Janez Jere
bcb-openssl.tar
It looks strange to me, that cert.pem would not be in the certs/
directory by default:
Index: crypto/cryptlib.h
===
RCS file: /src/packages/openssl/repository//openssl/crypto/cryptlib.h,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -r1.4
Now it seems that committing the new sparcv8*.S files may have been
a bit premature. sparcv8.S is fine with gas, but as doesn't like it:
rzdspc2% cc -c sparcv8.S
"sparcv8.S", line 592: a: argument mismatch
"sparcv8.S", line 592: b: argument mismatch
"sparcv8.S", line 595: r: argument
I was just about to suggest to rename solaris-sparc-cc to
solaris-sparc-sc3 and solaris-*-sc4 to solaris-*-cc which would cover
both SC4.x and SC5.x... But I can see you've introduced sc5 option:-(
I think that the number of the required SC5.0 "compiler common patch"
should be explicitely
I think that the number of the required SC5.0 "compiler common patch"
should be explicitely mentioned in Configure. It's 107357-01 or later.
I don't have SC5. How to do test for the number? A patch to the current
version of the config script would be very helpful.
It looks strange to me, that cert.pem would not be in the certs/
directory by default:
For some reason it already was that way in SSLeay.
Let's change that and move the config file out of lib.
Should we keep /usr/local/ssl as the default installation path? Or better
use $prefix=/usr/local
I think that the number of the required SC5.0 "compiler common patch"
should be explicitely mentioned in Configure. It's 107357-01 or later.
I don't have SC5. How to do test for the number?
Well, there is no good way. I mean such that *always* works. At least
not that I know of... One can
ulf It looks strange to me, that cert.pem would not be in the certs/
ulf directory by default:
ulf
ulf For some reason it already was that way in SSLeay.
True, I recall sending a similar report to Eric last fall or something
like that...
ulf Should we keep /usr/local/ssl as the default
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you
wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 May 1999 15:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE
UNSUBSCRIBE
__
OpenSSL Project
Is it still illegal to kill people who post unsubscribe messages to mailing
lists?
Normally I'd let it pass, but since he posted the same thing multiple times
after having mixed in a bucketful of HTML and passed it through a blender set
on "frappe", I think the application of
pgut001 I think the application of
pgut001 http://dazed.slacker.com/lists/clueless.html is in order.
Ooooh, a global LART! I like it!
pgut001 Anyone want to do the honours?
Done.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-161 43 BROMMA \ T:
In crypto/bio/b_sock.c, there's a call to getsockopt() that gets size
as last argument. size is of type int, but according to X/Open, the
socket routines like getsockopt() shall get sizes with the type
size_t. On most systems, size_t is the same as "unsigned int", which
in pedantic mode (gcc
Ulf Möller wrote:
Can we get rid of the
return 0; /* This can't happen */
in p12_key.c and similar things in ssl_lib.c, to avoid SC warnings?
"ssl_lib.c", line 655: warning: statement not reached
"ssl_lib.c", line 713: warning: statement not reached
Hmmm I seem to recall that
ben So, the question is, shall we go for X/Open standards? I think we
ben should. Question is how many compilers will break because of this.
ben
ben gcc on FreeBSD with -pedantic, for one.
OK...
ben I don't mind having a special type just for getsockopt that gets
ben done differently on
You can write your own callback in replacement for the cb (default) one.
No your probably correct. If your using certs with the SSL part of the
library, check out the files in the ssl directory, there are things in there
like useCertificate ... which are handy.
Your probably correct about the
15 matches
Mail list logo
