Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> Guenter Knauf wrote: >>>> Guenter Knauf schrieb: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> Sander Temme schrieb: >>>>>> On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against >>>>>>> openssl-1.0.0betaX, >>>>>>> as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be >>>>>>> cleaned. >>>>>> Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't recall >>>>>> putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come cycles. >>>>> I've yesterday compiled both HEAD and 2.2.x branch with OpenSSL 1.0.0 >>>>> beta 3, and that went fine - although I have a very picky compiler for >>>>> NetWare which normally breaks for every type mismatch ... >>>> whoops - I mixed up the include paths; Peter is right - seems that we >>>> need to backport these: >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=748396 >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=749466 >>> based on the above HEAD patches here's a 2.2.x branch patch: >>> http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/openssl-1.x-2.2.x.diff >>> please check and test if I catched all - I've tested on NetWare with >>> OpenSSL 0.9.7m, 0.9.8k and 1.0.0 beta3, and that went fine. >>> If nobody objects I'll propose this for backport. >> >> Since 2.2.12 just shipped, I'd say apply it. It will be easier for >> everyone to validate from svn, no? >> >> So +1 for committing and I'll commit to helping review-after-commit. > > Huh? For 2.2??
Yes. This patchwork is straightforward, it simply needs dedicated eyes to review and confirm on all platforms. But my vote alone wouldn't do it, and _that_ was the misunderstanding. Sorry to Guenter and others for the confusion. Seeing as there are two votes against applying before the STATUS juggling act, you would need five votes now, including Guenter's and mine, to actually move forward from 2.2. branch in this manner.
