Good morning,
Getting the same result on OpenSSL-0.9.8 (final);
Compiling ssl_engine_init.c
### mwccnlm Compiler:
#File: ssl_engine_init.c
# --
# 734: if (!(cert = d2i_X509(NULL, &ptr, asn1->nData))) {
# Error:
Compiling 2.1-dev on NetWare using OpenSSL 0.9.8-beta4
Brad
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, July 06, 2005 2:39:18 PM >>>
At 03:04 PM 7/6/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>I'm running into the same const problem here as well on the calls to
>d2i_X509() and d2i_PrivateKey(). Add these to your patch re
At 03:04 PM 7/6/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>I'm running into the same const problem here as well on the calls to
>d2i_X509() and d2i_PrivateKey(). Add these to your patch reworking.
Sorry; I'm not seeing that. Are you looking at 2.1-dev or 2.0.x
branch? Which version of OpenSSL?
Please advise
I'm running into the same const problem here as well on the calls to d2i_X509()
and d2i_PrivateKey(). Add these to your patch reworking.
Index: ssl_engine_init.c
===
--- ssl_engine_init.c (revision 209481)
+++ ssl_engine_init.c
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I have attached a patch to make mod_ssl compile with OpenSSL 0.9.8,
and also added an SSL variable "SSL_COMP_METHOD" to allow logging
(and other usages) of the negotiated compression method.
My concern is that older libraries would break under this patch.
Do we
At 12:44 PM 7/6/2005, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>At 12:10 PM 7/6/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>>-sess = d2i_SSL_SESSION(NULL, &ucpData, nData);
>>+sess = d2i_SSL_SESSION(NULL, (const UCHAR**)&ucpData, nData);
>
>UCHAR? Sure that isn't a Netware-ism?
My bad, I'm seeing it.
>Otherwise, +1
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:10:33AM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote:
> I think that there are a few more changes that need to be made. At
> least on NetWare it won't compile without the following additional
> patch.
This one needs a typedef which is defined correctly for the version of
OpenSSL in us
At 12:10 PM 7/6/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>I think that there are a few more changes that need to be made. At least on
>NetWare it won't compile without the following additional patch.
>
>--- ssl_scache_shmcb.c (revision 201624)
>+++ ssl_scache_shmcb.c (working copy)
This shmcb.c patch made s
I think that there are a few more changes that need to be made. At least on
NetWare it won't compile without the following additional patch.
Brad
Index: ssl_scache_shmcb.c
===
--- ssl_scache_shmcb.c (revision 201624)
+++ ssl_scach
At 11:19 AM 7/6/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>At 07:32 AM 7/5/2005, Georg v. Zezschwitz wrote:
>>
>>>However, currently 2.0.54 cannot be built with 0.9.8beta6, as
>>>a pem.h-definition has changed. The OpenSSL-team considers this
>>>renaming as a bug correction, so compila
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 07:32 AM 7/5/2005, Georg v. Zezschwitz wrote:
However, currently 2.0.54 cannot be built with 0.9.8beta6, as
a pem.h-definition has changed. The OpenSSL-team considers this
renaming as a bug correction, so compilation of mod_ssl will
go on to fail.
I've
At 07:32 AM 7/5/2005, Georg v. Zezschwitz wrote:
>However, currently 2.0.54 cannot be built with 0.9.8beta6, as
>a pem.h-definition has changed. The OpenSSL-team considers this
>renaming as a bug correction, so compilation of mod_ssl will
>go on to fail.
I've committed that fix to both 2.0 and 2.
At 04:01 AM 7/6/2005, Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
>> thank you for the patch. It looks appropriate, to me, so I'll
>> commit to 2.1.x and (if I can get two more +1's, folks???) I'll also
>> apply to 2.0.55 before we roll in the next day.
>
>Even though I'm not a commiter, I've take a look at the pa
Hi,
> thank you for the patch. It looks appropriate, to me, so I'll
> commit to 2.1.x and (if I can get two more +1's, folks???) I'll also
> apply to 2.0.55 before we roll in the next day.
Even though I'm not a commiter, I've take a look at the patch and it
seems good to me too.
Regards,
- Sa
Georg,
thank you for the patch. It looks appropriate, to me, so I'll
commit to 2.1.x and (if I can get two more +1's, folks???) I'll also
apply to 2.0.55 before we roll in the next day.
Bill
At 07:32 AM 7/5/2005, Georg v. Zezschwitz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>the OpenSSL team will pretty soon release 0.
Hi,
the OpenSSL team will pretty soon release 0.9.8 as stable release.
However, currently 2.0.54 cannot be built with 0.9.8beta6, as
a pem.h-definition has changed. The OpenSSL-team considers this
renaming as a bug correction, so compilation of mod_ssl will
go on to fail.
OpenSSL 0.9.8 will intr
16 matches
Mail list logo
