On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
> After all the discussions, I think we reached concensus. The change I
> just committed should work. I'll resolve this ticket.
The extra pair of parentheses does the trick. The dummytest.c file seems
to work now. Thanks for getting this fix
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
> After all the discussions, I think we reached concensus. The change I
> just committed should work. I'll resolve this ticket.
The extra pair of parentheses does the trick. The dummytest.c file seems
to work now. Thanks for getting this fixe
After all the discussions, I think we reached concensus. The change I
just committed should work. I'll resolve this ticket.
--
Richard Levitte
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.o
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:41:17
+0200 (METDST), "[EMAIL PROTECTED] via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
rt> With these changes I get the same error that made me try to change the
rt> code initially. I copied dummytest.c to ideatest.c and ran make. GCC
rt> doesn't like "
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote:
> I understand, however, why you made that change, now that I looked a
> little more closely at the rest of the changes. I made the following
> change to your change:
>
> --- /home/levitte/dist/dummytest.c2002-07-22 18:08:01.
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote:
> I understand, however, why you made that change, now that I looked a
> little more closely at the rest of the changes. I made the following
> change to your change:
>
> --- /home/levitte/dist/dummytest.c2002-07-22 18:08:01.0
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 22 Jul
2002 08:00:23 -0700 (PDT), Doug Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
dkaufman> I am not sure that I understand the question. Where do I keep ".exe"
dkaufman> at the end? The end of what? After copying dummytest.c to ideatest.c
dkaufman> and compiling,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 22 Jul
2002 08:00:23 -0700 (PDT), Doug Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
dkaufman> I am not sure that I understand the question. Where do I keep ".exe"
dkaufman> at the end? The end of what? After copying dummytest.c to ideatest.c
dkaufman> and compiling, I
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 21
>Jul 2002 13:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Doug Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> dkaufman> The patch (djgpp.last-patch) doesn't work as posted to RT, but I think
> dkaufman> that I have modif
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 21
>Jul 2002 13:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Doug Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> dkaufman> The patch (djgpp.last-patch) doesn't work as posted to RT, but I think
> dkaufman> that I have modifi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 21 Jul
2002 13:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Doug Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
dkaufman> The patch (djgpp.last-patch) doesn't work as posted to RT, but I think
dkaufman> that I have modified it to what you intended. Also the modifications
dkaufman> for pod2mante
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 21 Jul
2002 13:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Doug Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
dkaufman> The patch (djgpp.last-patch) doesn't work as posted to RT, but I think
dkaufman> that I have modified it to what you intended. Also the modifications
dkaufman> for pod2mantes
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
> The attached patch contains my suggestion. Would you mind looking
> it over and comment on it, perhaps even test it?
The patch (djgpp.last-patch) doesn't work as posted to RT, but I think
that I have modified it to what you intended. Also t
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
> The attached patch contains my suggestion. Would you mind looking
> it over and comment on it, perhaps even test it?
The patch (djgpp.last-patch) doesn't work as posted to RT, but I think
that I have modified it to what you intended. Also th
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
> I've been away from this ticket for a while, sorry about the delay.
Thanks for getting back to it.
> I think I've solved the problem. Since the tests are the biggest
> problem with my suggestion, I deviced a mechanism to generate dummy
>
Hey Doug,
I've been away from this ticket for a while, sorry about the delay.
I think I've solved the problem. Since the tests are the biggest
problem with my suggestion, I deviced a mechanism to generate dummy
test programs for the missing algorithms.
Note that I don't clear the "symbolic
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Doug Kaufman wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
>
> > I still don't accept this change, and I've figured out why (I had
I just reviewed the changes that you made as of 30 June 2002. The
changes for makedepend work fine. Compiling the snapshot from
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Doug Kaufman wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
>
> > I still don't accept this change, and I've figured out why (I had
I just reviewed the changes that you made as of 30 June 2002. The
changes for makedepend work fine. Compiling the snapshot from
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Jun 17 09:54:04 2002]:
> The snapshot doesn't work under DJGPP, but I think that this patch
> will fix it. There were several problems. In Configure, you tried
to
> use ENV{DJDIR}, but this puts in a DOS style path such as
That was a mistake, I only changed one of the
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Doug Kaufman wrote:
> With this patch, the snapshot from 13 June does Configure, make, and
> "make test" without problems under DJGPP. "make depend" also completes
> without warnings, but it doesn't seem necessary to run it.
>
> Patch attached to avoid problems with long lin
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Doug Kaufman wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
>
> > I finally committed most of your changes. Please download the next
> > snapshot of 0.9.7 and check that it works as intended.
> >
> > I'm keeping this ticket open until you have confirmed that
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Doug Kaufman wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
>
[snip]
> > Is it '-fR' that you're refering to? I agree... Would it be possible
> > to reimplement the recursive part in terms of sh (removes the need for
> > -R), and then use rm to remove ea
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> Apropos point.sh, does the ln command exist at all in the DJGPP
> environment? And if it exists, would it be possible to test that it
> works properly with the -s switch, say in terms of exit codes?
> Something like this could be possib
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
> I finally committed most of your changes. Please download the next
> snapshot of 0.9.7 and check that it works as intended.
>
> I'm keeping this ticket open until you have confirmed that it works
> (perhaps after further changes).
Thanks.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> The maintainance problem comes if there is anything special that needs
> to be done, because the change will be done in the above code as well
> as somewhere in the chain of calls to point.sh and mklink.pl. And
> honestly, I prefer the
I finally committed most of your changes. Please download the next
snapshot of 0.9.7 and check that it works as intended.
I'm keeping this ticket open until you have confirmed that it works
(perhaps after further changes).
--
Richard Levitte
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 13 Jun 2002
21:08:37 +0200 (CEST), Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Apropos point.sh, does the ln command exist at all in the DJGPP
environment? And if it exists, would it be possible to test that it
works properly with the -s switch
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 13 Jun 2002
21:08:37 +0200 (CEST), Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
levitte> dkaufman> The one problem I still see is with point.sh. It works for
levitte> dkaufman> DJGPP, but won't work for other systems without symbolic
levitte> dka
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 9 Jun
2002 18:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Doug Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
dkaufman> On 6 June 2002, Richard Levitte wrote:
dkaufman> > [...]
dkaufman> > > @@ -1226,6 +1230,50 @@
dkaufman> > > close(IN);
dkaufman> > > close(OUT);
dkaufman> > >
dkaufman> > >
On 6 June 2002, Richard Levitte wrote:
>
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jun 4 19:47:25 2002]:
>
> OK, I've a few comments:
>
> > --- openssl-0.9.7/Configure.orig2002-05-30
> 10:08:08.0 -0800
> > +++ openssl-0.9.7/Configure 2002-06-02 15:23:38.0 -0800
> > @@ -513,6 +513,9 @@
>
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jun 4 19:47:25 2002]:
OK, I've a few comments:
> --- openssl-0.9.7/Configure.orig 2002-05-30
10:08:08.0 -0800
> +++ openssl-0.9.7/Configure 2002-06-02 15:23:38.0 -0800
> @@ -513,6 +513,9 @@
> "Cygwin-pre1.3", "gcc:-DTERMIOS -DL_ENDIAN -fomit-fr
Here is a slightly redone patch so that openssl-0.9.7 compiles under
DJGPP. This is against the June 1 snapshot. I removed the part of the
patch relating to Cygwin, since the Cygwin settings in Configure have
now changed. This configures, builds, and does "make test" without
problem, except for t
32 matches
Mail list logo
