Shared library support just isn't ready yet in OpenSSL. Configure and
the Makefiles need work to do it right.
Here's a completely unsupported recipe for HPUX 10.20. It assumes you
know the difference between static, static pic, and dynamic libraries.
If it doesn't work you're on your own. I'm
While the USSA goverment has succeeded in FUD'ing you and preventing
the online publication of your documentatoin there is still the
possibility of publishing your doc in a useful paper form.
||ugh Daniel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
when revoke a certificate '01.pem' ,and use
'openssl ca -gencrl -out crl.pem'
to generate crl . then 'cat crl.pem ./demoCA/cacert.pem',
when use 'openssl verify -CApath ./demoCA
-CAfile ./demoCA/cacert.pem 01.pem' to verify the
revoked
In article 00ca01be9b01$7c16e3a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Hi, how can I convert a certificate from X509*xs structure format to DER =
format, and put it in a char * string in C, without using a temporary file ?
Thanks everibody in advance.
First, can you please post in plain ASCII? It's
Hi, (hope this is the right thing to do...)
FYI for openssl-SNAP-19990518-0930 (and a few others previous to
this)...
I did a test build on the sun ultra 5 here...
$ uname -a
SunOS helios 5.6 Generic_105181-05 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-5_10
$ gcc --version
2.7.2.3
config guesses as...
Operating
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
ben OK, I propose that we follow the Apache version numbering scheme, which,
ben I quote:
ben
ben /* Numeric release version identifier: MMNNFFRBB: major minor fix final
ben beta
I assume "final" means "release"...
Yes, 0 for beta, 1 for release.
ben There are some serious problems with md32_common.h that I've run
ben into. However, I'll wait 'til the next rsync (in a few minutes)
ben to see if it has been resolved already...
ben
ben OK, care to say what they are?
It's been resolved. It was that HASH_BLOCK_DATA_ORDER wasn't
Do we? We don't currently have a policy of incrementing version numbers
during development cycles.
We don't have the policy to make incompatible changes to the API either,
do we?
Using the wrong pointer type is an *error* with g++, for example, so we
need a way to detect this.
At 11:35 18.05.99 +0100, you wrote:
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
ben OK, I propose that we follow the Apache version numbering scheme,
which,
ben I quote:
ben
ben /* Numeric release version identifier: MMNNFFRBB: major minor fix
final
ben beta
I assume "final" means "release"...
Ulf Möller wrote:
Do we? We don't currently have a policy of incrementing version numbers
during development cycles.
We don't have the policy to make incompatible changes to the API either,
do we?
Yes, I'm afraid we do.
Using the wrong pointer type is an *error* with g++, for
in asn1 lib , is PRIMATIVE should be PRIMITIVE?
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager
babinebell Yes, 0 for beta, 1 for release. 2-f could be used for something else,
babinebell but I can't think what :-)
babinebell
babinebell 2 for next beta,
babinebell 3 for a interim release,
babinebell 4 for the betas based on 3
babinebell ...
No, I assume the version will be upped instead.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Ulf Möller wrote:
Do we? We don't currently have a policy of incrementing version numbers
during development cycles.
We don't have the policy to make incompatible changes to the API either,
do we?
Yes, I'm afraid we do.
Using the wrong
I'm using OpenSSL 0.9.2B and would like to enable/disable session id
caching. Is this possible from the command line, or does the software
need to be tweaked?
Thanks,
Vince
__
OpenSSL Project
release without change if they track all the way to the end. We don't
support distinguishing an arbitrary snapshot of a development version,
though; only the latest. So, if you have support for a feature in 0.9.4,
then you test like this:
#if OPENSSL_VERSION = 0x00904000
In that case I
Well, if you're referring to humans or monkeys, PRIMATIVE may be
appropriate. ;-
On Tue, 18 May 1999, gang cao wrote:
in asn1 lib , is PRIMATIVE should be PRIMITIVE?
__
OpenSSL Project
This is *at least* the 5th time I see this same message. What's
happening?
And also, I pretty often see messages twice, even if they're obviously
sent to one address only. What's happening?
I can, on request, take a closer look on my side.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 05:19:01PM +0200, Ulf Möller wrote:
#if OPENSSL_VERSION = 0x00904000
In that case I would just test for the release version number
OPENSSL_VERSION = 0x000904100, ignoring that the feature already is
present in some of the development versions.
But we're talking
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
release without change if they track all the way to the end. We don't
support distinguishing an arbitrary snapshot of a development version,
though; only the latest. So, if you have support for a feature in 0.9.4,
then you test like this:
#if
Ulf Möller wrote:
$ gcc --version
2.7.2.3
cc1: Invalid option `cpu=ultrasparc'
Thanks for pointing that out. Since which version does gcc support ultrasparc?
Since 2.8 I believe. In either case note that those UltraSPARC-specific
assembler modules can be perfectly "compiled" with 2.7
20 matches
Mail list logo
