In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:13:15 +0100, Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
ben> Can we wrap this kind of thing up in a back compatibility flag of some ben> kind (at least in 0.9.8) so we know we can remove them eventually? I've pondered starting to define some kind of general backward compatibility flags. DEC C uses the macros DECC_V4_SOURCE and DECC_V6_SOURCE to check if the user wants DEC C version 4 or version 6 compatibility. We could define the macros OPENSSL_096_SOURCE, OPENSSL_097_SOURCE and so on. Comments? -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]