On 09/01/19, Michael Olbrich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:31:12PM +, Denis OSTERLAND wrote:
> > AFAIK OpenSSL 1.0 -> 1.1 is a bigger step.
> > On which architectures have you tried it?
> > Do you compiled ALL_YES?
> >
> > Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2019, 14:45 +0100 schrieb Oliver
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:31:12PM +, Denis OSTERLAND wrote:
> AFAIK OpenSSL 1.0 -> 1.1 is a bigger step.
> On which architectures have you tried it?
> Do you compiled ALL_YES?
>
> Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2019, 14:45 +0100 schrieb Oliver Graute:
> > this patch bump openssl to LTS version
On 09/01/19, Denis OSTERLAND wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> AFAIK OpenSSL 1.0 -> 1.1 is a bigger step.
I know, so I started with this little changes to get feedback as early
as possible.
> On which architectures have you tried it?
> Do you compiled ALL_YES?
no, I just compiled for debian-armel, for
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:31:12PM +, Denis OSTERLAND wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> AFAIK OpenSSL 1.0 -> 1.1 is a bigger step.
But it is worth doing as I could then finally drop local patches to
enable crypodev ;-)
> On which architectures have you tried it?
Just tried on OMAP3 board only.
Hi Oliver,
AFAIK OpenSSL 1.0 -> 1.1 is a bigger step.
On which architectures have you tried it?
Do you compiled ALL_YES?
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2019, 14:45 +0100 schrieb Oliver Graute:
> this patch bump openssl to LTS version 1.1.1a
>
> Signed-off-by: Oliver Graute
> ---
>
> first try to get
this patch bump openssl to LTS version 1.1.1a
Signed-off-by: Oliver Graute
---
first try to get LTS openssl into ptxdist
- added debian-armel to Configurations/10-main.conf for compiling on arm
- dropped the other patches, are these still necessary?
