On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:19:02PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 11/7/2017 12:15 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:57 PM, James Almer wrote:
> >> On 11/7/2017 10:48 AM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos
> >>> wrote:
> Hi!
>
On 11/7/2017 12:15 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:57 PM, James Almer wrote:
>> On 11/7/2017 10:48 AM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
Hi!
Attached patch fixes compilation with current libressl, related to tic
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:57 PM, James Almer wrote:
> On 11/7/2017 10:48 AM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Attached patch fixes compilation with current libressl, related to ticket
>>> #6801.
>>>
>>
>> I believe we basically had
On 11/7/2017 10:48 AM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Attached patch fixes compilation with current libressl, related to ticket
>> #6801.
>>
>
> I believe we basically had that exact same patch on the ML before, and
> the consensus w
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Attached patch fixes compilation with current libressl, related to ticket
> #6801.
>
I believe we basically had that exact same patch on the ML before, and
the consensus was to not have a jungle of #ifdefs in the code, and
instead
Am 07.11.2017 um 14:37 schrieb James Almer:
On 11/7/2017 10:28 AM, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
I would very much rather have a way to get libressl to compile with
tls_openssl.c, or just reject it altogether, than adding a duplicate
module just for a fork that pretends to be compatible with a versio
On 11/7/2017 10:28 AM, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
>> I would very much rather have a way to get libressl to compile with
>> tls_openssl.c, or just reject it altogether, than adding a duplicate
>> module just for a fork that pretends to be compatible with a version of
>> openssl but not providing the
I would very much rather have a way to get libressl to compile with
tls_openssl.c, or just reject it altogether, than adding a duplicate
module just for a fork that pretends to be compatible with a version of
openssl but not providing the required API for it.
I refuse to give special treatment to
On 11/7/2017 10:04 AM, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> Am 07.11.2017 um 13:28 schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Attached patch fixes compilation with current libressl, related to
>> ticket #6801.
>>
>> Please comment, Carl Eugen
>
> Wouldn't it be better to move that check to configure, so it does
Am 07.11.2017 um 13:28 schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos:
Hi!
Attached patch fixes compilation with current libressl, related to ticket #6801.
Please comment, Carl Eugen
Wouldn't it be better to move that check to configure, so it does not
build the openssl backend with libressl, and then merge the l
10 matches
Mail list logo
