> On 1/12/2012 5:47 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: >> But I'm not going to add support for things older than 0.9.6, this >> stuff is ancient. > > Okay, thanks. > >>> Also, the examples given in the header are confusing because they >>> leave out the patch level from the string. I think the patch level >>> can be included as a fourth component in our OPENSSL_VERSION var. >> >> Hm? >> * 0.9.3a 0x0090301f >> * 0.9.4 0x0090400f >> * 1.2.3z 0x102031af > > The format is specified as > > MNNFFPPS > > where > > M = Major NN = Minor FF = Fix PP = Patch S = Status > > The example 0x0090301f matches up to that as > > M = 0 NN = 09 FF = 03 PP = 01 S = f > > which should be > > 0.9.3.1f
Nope, see below. > The example with "z" in it makes no sense at all given the explanation > right above it: > > * The status nibble has one of the values 0 for development, 1 to e for > betas > * 1 to 14, and f for release. The patch level is exactly that. > > The explanation you give in your new commit on the topic is more coherent. > Where did you get it that information? The lines above the examples. Status = f -> this is a released version PP = 0x1 -> a Eike -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
