On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 08:34:06PM +0200, Jani Taskinen via RT wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote:
> >This problem has been resolved for 0.9.7...
>
> Great.
>
> >Is it worthwile to make a small adjustment for 0.9.6e (in case it will
> >be released)?
>
> If 0.9.7 is due to be released soon (?) then I don't think
> that's necessary..but of course if there will be another
> release of 0.9.6 then it would be nice to have this in it.
There will not be another release of 0.9.6 before 0.9.7 will be out.
We still maintain the 0.9.6 tree, because we anticipate that due to
incompatible changes between 0.9.6 and 0.9.7 several people will stay
with 0.9.6x for some more time, so we are prepared to release another
0.9.6e version, if important bugs are found. It is however not clear,
whether there will really be a 0.9.6e release. If 0.9.7 is accepted
fast by our user base, it will never appear.
The change that is required will break binary compatibility between 0.9.6d
and 0.9.6e (because that's the purpose of the change :-). Even though
we try to make clear that we don't promise binary compatibility, a lot
of people expect it. I am therefore a bit reluctant to make the change
and will keep the issue as an "open ticket" in the request tracker, until
0.9.6e becomes reality or some other member of the team makes a final
decision.
Best regards,
Lutz
--
Lutz Jaenicke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.aet.TU-Cottbus.DE/personen/jaenicke/
BTU Cottbus, Allgemeine Elektrotechnik
Universitaetsplatz 3-4, D-03044 Cottbus
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
