On Sun April 5 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> This is from /openssl-SNAP-20090405 on Solaris x86 ver 2.5.1 using
> gcc 2.95.3:
>
> gcc -I.. -I../.. -I../asn1 -I../evp -I../../include -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC
> -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -O3
> -fomit-frame-pointer -marc
This is from /openssl-SNAP-20090405 on Solaris x86 ver 2.5.1 using
gcc 2.95.3:
gcc -I.. -I../.. -I../asn1 -I../evp -I../../include -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC
-DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer -march=pentium -Wall -DL_ENDIAN
-DOPENSSL_NO_INLINE_ASM -DOP
That's a Layer 1/2 issue. Perhaps you mean RFC 3514?
--
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mw...@iupui.edu
Friends don't let friends publish revisable-form documents.
pgpD1Wm4j9Cwx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 02 April 2009 11:24:56 Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
> > On Wednesday 01 April 2009 16:34:35 Rene Hollan wrote:
> > > This is an April Fools' joke, right?
> >
> > It's April 2, so I can reply now.
> >
> > Z80. Java. Casiotone. Doesn't the question
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 April 2009 16:34:35 Rene Hollan wrote:
> > This is an April Fools' joke, right?
>
> It's April 2, so I can reply now.
>
> Z80. Java. Casiotone. Doesn't the question sort of answer itself?
>
Personally I think mentioning Windows gave i
openssl.org on behalf of Geoff Thorpe
> Sent: Wed 4/1/2009 12:11 PM
> To: openssl-users@openssl.org
> Subject: Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
>
> On Wednesday 01 April 2009 09:05:05 Thomas J. Hruska wrote:
> > The problem is that I was under the distinct impression 0.9.9 was
>
On Thu April 2 2009, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:01:00PM +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
>
> > It was decided that we should no longer combine feature and bugfix releases
> > and to do that we revised the versioning scheme. The 0.9.x was a legacy from
> > the SSLeay days s
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:01:00PM +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
> It was decided that we should no longer combine feature and bugfix releases
> and to do that we revised the versioning scheme. The 0.9.x was a legacy from
> the SSLeay days so we wanted a clean break and went for 1.0.0 in what w
On Thu April 2 2009, Yves Rutschle wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:01:48AM -0500, Michael S. Zick wrote:
> > I realize that progress in the security field is slow - but will this
> > new release support rfc1149?
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149
>
> That's a hardware layer, below IP. SSL
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:01:48AM -0500, Michael S. Zick wrote:
> I realize that progress in the security field is slow - but will this
> new release support rfc1149?
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149
That's a hardware layer, below IP. SSL is well above that,
over TCP. If your operating system
On Wed April 1 2009, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 April 2009 09:05:05 Thomas J. Hruska wrote:
> > The problem is that I was under the distinct impression 0.9.9 was the
> > next release and 1.0.0 was a pipe dream a few years down the road (at
> > least).
>
> The choice of a 1.0 release is
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:01 +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
> Under this scheme
>
> 1. Bug fix releases will change the letter.
>E.g. 1.0.0 -> 1.0.0a
>
> 2. Feature releases will change the last (minor) number.
>E.g. 1.0.0 -> 1.0.1
>
> 3. Major development will change the second (m
* Dr. Stephen Henson wrote on Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 13:01 +0200:
[...]
> Under this scheme
>
> 1. Bug fix releases will change the letter.
>E.g. 1.0.0 -> 1.0.0a
>
> 2. Feature releases will change the last (minor) number.
>E.g. 1.0.0 -> 1.0.1
>
> 3. Major development will change the
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009, Kenneth Goldman wrote:
> Assuming it's not a joke, what's the meaning of a 1.0 as opposed to
> 0.9.something.
>
> My hope is that you'll say the API is frozen and that there's a commitment
> not to break backward compatibility in future releases.
>
Here's an outline of the
Assuming it's not a joke, what's the meaning of a 1.0 as opposed to
0.9.something.
My hope is that you'll say the API is frozen and that there's a commitment
not to break backward compatibility in future releases.
--
Ken Goldman kg...@watson.ibm.com
914-784-7646 (863-7646)
This is an April Fools' joke, right?
-Original Message-
From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org on behalf of Geoff Thorpe
Sent: Wed 4/1/2009 12:11 PM
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 1 released
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 09:05:05 Thomas J. Hruska wrote:
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 09:05:05 Thomas J. Hruska wrote:
> The problem is that I was under the distinct impression 0.9.9 was the
> next release and 1.0.0 was a pipe dream a few years down the road (at
> least).
The choice of a 1.0 release is to clearly mark the fact that openssl is
shifting to
Kyle Hamilton wrote:
I will simply remind you of the following piece of the (signed) announcement:
Oh and to those who have noticed the date... the joke is that it
isn't a joke.
-Kyle H
Doesn't matter if it is signed (I noticed that, BTW). April 1st is all
about looking as legit as possi
I will simply remind you of the following piece of the (signed) announcement:
> Oh and to those who have noticed the date... the joke is that it
> isn't a joke.
-Kyle H
__
OpenSSL Project http://w
OpenSSL wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OpenSSL version 1.0.0 Beta 1
OpenSSL - The Open Source toolkit for SSL/TLS
http://www.openssl.org/
OpenSSL is currently in a release cycle. The first beta is now released.
The beta release i
20 matches
Mail list logo
