On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Vishnu Param <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can anyone point me to a working version of 0.9.9 snapshot?
This sounds like a different question between the line[s]. The fact that you ask, hints to me that the stable 0.9.8 releases are maybe better suited for you. If you want 'stable' in any real sense, you should stick with stable releases, i.e. the latest 0.9.8. Personally, I don't mind a mishap once in a while; I can handle that. Having access to the bleeding edge is more important to me, so I track the CVS HEAD for several years now, by irregularly syncing my code tree to 0.9.9 HEAD and code reviewing the changes upon merge. This adds cost to the process, but that's the price I pay for my 'bleeding edge'. And I am willing to pay that price. I sync irregularly, because I sync source trees when I have a little time to (a) check the changes and (b) seek and fix changes when the new source code shows faulty / suspect behavior in my projects. When you think likewise and do not expect others to provide the stability you need (i.e. you can take care of it yourself), CVS bleeding edge is for you. Then it becomes a question of 'upkeep cost': this determines how often you sync to head and how the sync is executed. If you automatically track the CVS head, your 'quality' will never surpass the quality of the actual CVS head. If you need higher quality at times, a semi-manual merge process like I apply is mandatory. Which has its own risks and costs. (It also allows me to have a slightly 'augmented' OpenSSL, which has sufficient worth to me to do this.) That said, I have found only few times in the past several years when CVS head did not compile on my systems. (Mind you: this doesn't say it will pass all functional tests.) Yes, there may be some trouble with the makefiles, configure script or other [important] paraphernalia, but it's always resolvable - if you have the capability and the capacity to do so. If you don't feel quite at home with complex software systems, 0.9.8 releases are for you. So to me, /all/ snapshots 'work'. And then 0.9.9 becomes about staying on the bleeding edge as best you can / want. Your sync process should accommodate that. Which is why I described mine above: it is one possible way to answer this dillema. Daily sync to CVS HEAD is another answer: though with different benefits and costs. In short: take the CVS HEAD and the above and decide for yourself what works for /you/. I cannot answer that. I can advise, but I cannot decide for you. Nor can anyone else. -- Met vriendelijke groeten / Best regards, Ger Hobbelt -------------------------------------------------- web: http://www.hobbelt.com/ http://www.hebbut.net/ mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mobile: +31-6-11 120 978 -------------------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
