Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan Pedersen wrote:
> >
> > Greetings.
> >
> > I've compiled OpenSSL SNAP 990309-2130 yesterday
> > on Linux-2.2.1 with pgcc (egcs-1.1.1 with pentium opt.)
And btw make that linux-2.2.2
> > Build and install works but I noticed that one
> > of the tests fails with a certificate failure. I didn't
> > have time to investigate any further though... maybe tonight.
>
> If not, at least show us the output.
test SSL protocol
test sslv2
Protocol SSLv2, cipher SSLv2, DES-CBC3-MD5
test sslv2 with server authentication
server authentication
depth=0 error=20 /C=AU/ST=Queensland/O=CryptSoft Pty Ltd/CN=Server
test cert (512 bit)
ERROR in CLIENT
1935:error:1407E086:SSL routines:SSL2_SET_CERTIFICATE:certificate
verify failed:s2_clnt.c:922:
Protocol SSLv2, cipher (NONE), (NONE)
make[1]: *** [test_ssl] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory
`/home/qinxste/dev/SSL/openssl/openssl-SNAP-19990309-2130/test'
make: *** [tests] Error 2
The last test, test_ca, passes with flying colors...
>
> > I also took some time to look into autoconf with friends and
> > I feel that openssl could really benefit from autoconf rather
> > than the current setup (it would solve both the const and the
> > prototype problems with little effort).
>
> It would? How?
For const, the simplest possible way, ie by #defining it
to the empty string. I admit that it isn�t as simple for
prototypes, a soulution like __P macros that have been
discussed before is probably necessary.
But my point really is for un*x like systems, autoconf&co
would make it alot easier to keep track of the system-
dependent stuff. And we would get shared libraries for a small
extra cost compared to the way it is now...
So, the question one have to ask is, would it be worth it?
As far as the Windows port is concerned, I have no ideas...
Regards,
Stefan
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
