My view is to keep a note at the top saying versions prior to 1.0.2 didn’t
check but remove the long bottom section about doing it.
It will be in the page history forever and people using unsupported versions
could reasonably be expected to check there.
Pauli
--
Oracle
Dr Paul Dale |
Seeing "This was the original information, might still be valid for < 1.0.2
openssl versions :" at
https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Hostname_validation raises the question
as to whether or not the wiki should contain information for versions of
OpenSSL that are no longer supported.
Thoughts?
Ti
Hi OpenSSL,
I would like to drop this email as a note for you guys (and other people who
cares about this project) to know:
Yesterday I was invited to an ‘open source and cloud computing’ conference in
Beijing to give a speech on OpenSSL. The topic of the presentation was
‘Post-Heartbleed Era
In message <072aaeb6-59b9-0e8a-f33e-35572350c...@openssl.org> on Mon, 26 Mar
2018 14:15:24 +0200, Andy Polyakov said:
appro> > So no, a straight makefile rule for a config attribute value isn't
appro> > going to be good enough.
appro>
appro> How about this. We have touched this when discussing
> appro> > Another side thing that I've been thinking of for quite a while, and
> I
> appro> > think you may have argued for even though I feel a bit unsure, and
> appro> > that's to support command line attributes as an alternative to that
> appro> > increasing amount of specialised attributes, s
Just a reminder that I will be freezing the repo later today in advance
of the 1.1.0/1.0.2 releases tomorrow.
Matt
___
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
