Re: [openssl.org #3331] [PATCH] respect LDFLAGS during build

2014-06-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Mon 28 Apr 2014 09:32:40 Salz, Rich wrote: While rpaths are not needed in some contexts, they are important in others, please do not remove rpath support. Yes, such as cross-compiling or embedded systems. I think it's reasonable to make it a config option tho. eh ? rpaths are not

Re: [openssl.org #3336] 1.0.1g breaks IronPORT SMTP appliance (padding extension)

2014-06-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thu 01 May 2014 13:26:48 Stephen Henson via RT wrote: On Thu May 01 12:29:58 2014, meiss...@suse.de wrote: SUSE has received a bugreport from a user, that the padding extension change breaks IronPort SMTP appliances. There might a RT on this already, not sure.

Re: [openssl.org #3331] [PATCH] respect LDFLAGS during build

2014-06-16 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 02:10:14AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Mon 28 Apr 2014 09:32:40 Salz, Rich wrote: While rpaths are not needed in some contexts, they are important in others, please do not remove rpath support. Yes, such as cross-compiling or embedded systems. I think it's

Re: [openssl.org #3331] [PATCH] respect LDFLAGS during build

2014-06-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Mon 16 Jun 2014 06:39:40 Viktor Dukhovni wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 02:10:14AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Mon 28 Apr 2014 09:32:40 Salz, Rich wrote: While rpaths are not needed in some contexts, they are important in others, please do not remove rpath support. Yes,

Re: Cygwin: march=i486

2014-06-16 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jun 5 22:09, Matt Caswell wrote: On 05/06/14 21:51, Jeremy Farrell wrote: Current OpenSSL sources only support 32-bit Cygwin. Corinna Vinschen contributed patches to support 64-bit Cygwin some time ago: http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=3110 These patches have already

Re: [openssl.org #3403] Null dereference and memory leak reports for openssl-1.0.1h from Facebook's Infer static analyzer

2014-06-16 Thread Peter O'Hearn via RT
Hey Rich Salz, you have correctly inferred that the REPORT part is automated. The REMARKS are my human non-automated commentary resulting from looking at the code or at other INFER reports for similar issues; just a little context. regards, Peter

[openssl.org #3373] [BUG] [WIN] DLL copyright message not synchronize for quite a while

2014-06-16 Thread Matt Caswell via RT
To be honest I'm not too sure what the policy here is, but I think we generally don't update copyright messages unless some significant change is made. There are a lot of files in the OpenSSL source code with these dates inI'd rather not go through each one individually fixing them! Matt

RE: [openssl.org #3373] [BUG] [WIN] DLL copyright message not synchronize for quite a while

2014-06-16 Thread Salz, Rich
For what it's worth, the policy at IBM (where I used to work, and where they know quite a few things about software intellectual property), is that you only update the copyright on an individual file *when you modify it.* /r$ -- Principal Security Engineer Akamai Technologies,