In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:55:26
+0100 (MET), Solar Designer via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt * Wed Sep 25 2002 Solar Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rt - Don't do an explicit make build-shared, it's not needed and could only
rt cause harm (link libssl against libcrypto
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:55:26
+0100 (MET), Solar Designer via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt * Wed Sep 25 2002 Solar Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rt - Don't do an explicit make build-shared, it's not needed and could only
rt cause harm (link libssl against libcrypto
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:00:37PM +0100, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun May 12 22:48:56 2002]:
JFYI, when updating our package from 0.9.6c to 0.9.6d I've noticed
that the new shared libcrypto library doesn't work anymore. The
openssl(1) binary wouldn't
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:54:31 +0300,
Solar Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
solar I've now tried removing the patch from our 0.9.6g package and what I
solar get is:
solar
solar 1. Both versions appear to produce a working library now, however:
solar
solar 2. The
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:54:31 +0300,
Solar Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
solar I've now tried removing the patch from our 0.9.6g package and what I
solar get is:
solar
solar 1. Both versions appear to produce a working library now, however:
solar
solar 2. The
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 09:05:13AM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote:
rt # DIRS= crypto ssl rsaref $(SHLIB_MARK) apps test tools
rt # all: clean-shared Makefile.ssl sub_all
rt make Makefile.ssl
rt make sub_all DIRS=crypto ssl rsaref
rt LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd` make sub_all
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:26:26
+0100 (MET), Solar Designer via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt Well, I left it in because the original Makefile would build it too.
rt Is that just to support Configure rsaref?
Yes.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 09:05:13AM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote:
rt # DIRS= crypto ssl rsaref $(SHLIB_MARK) apps test tools
rt # all: clean-shared Makefile.ssl sub_all
rt make Makefile.ssl
rt make sub_all DIRS=crypto ssl rsaref
rt LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd` make sub_all
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun May 12 22:48:56 2002]:
JFYI, when updating our package from 0.9.6c to 0.9.6d I've noticed
that the new shared libcrypto library doesn't work anymore. The
openssl(1) binary wouldn't recognize any of the block ciphers. I
tracked this down to the addition of
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:00:37PM +0100, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun May 12 22:48:56 2002]:
JFYI, when updating our package from 0.9.6c to 0.9.6d I've noticed
that the new shared libcrypto library doesn't work anymore. The
openssl(1) binary wouldn't
Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote:
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun May 12 22:48:56 2002]:
JFYI, when updating our package from 0.9.6c to 0.9.6d I've noticed
that the new shared libcrypto library doesn't work anymore. The
openssl(1) binary wouldn't recognize any of the block ciphers. I
tracked
JFYI, when updating our package from 0.9.6c to 0.9.6d I've noticed
that the new shared libcrypto library doesn't work anymore. The
openssl(1) binary wouldn't recognize any of the block ciphers. I
tracked this down to the addition of -Wl,-Bsymbolic. Removing that
option solved the problem for
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun May 12 22:48:56 2002]:
JFYI, when updating our package from 0.9.6c to 0.9.6d I've noticed
that the new shared libcrypto library doesn't work anymore. The
openssl(1) binary wouldn't recognize any of the block ciphers. I
tracked this down to the addition of
13 matches
Mail list logo