On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Doug Kaufman wrote:
> With this patch, the snapshot from 13 June does Configure, make, and
> "make test" without problems under DJGPP. "make depend" also completes
> without warnings, but it doesn't seem necessary to run it.
>
> Patch attached to avoid problems with long lin
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Doug Kaufman wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
>
> > I finally committed most of your changes. Please download the next
> > snapshot of 0.9.7 and check that it works as intended.
> >
> > I'm keeping this ticket open until you have confirmed that
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 14 Jun 2002 21:14:43 +0200
(METDST), "Lutz Jaenicke via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
rt> Richard: you seem to have a beta version of 3.1.1 around. Will its
rt> output for -dumpversion somehow fit into the model?
: ; gcc -dumpversion
3.1.1
I see no prob
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:59:59
+0200 (MET DST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
jaenicke> diff -u -r1.7.8.1 -r1.7.8.2
jaenicke> --- c_all.c 2002/02/23 02:09:25 1.7.8.1
jaenicke> +++ c_all.c 2002/06/14 18:59:53 1.7.8.2
jaenicke> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@
jaenicke>
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Jun 14 22:02:06 2002]:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote:
>
> >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 sev
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote:
>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 w
Thank you for your answer...
I got the latest CVS and the config works fine now.
great work you guys are doing.
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 19:09, Lutz Jaenicke wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:46:42PM +, Gustavo A. Baratto wrote:
> > I'm not being successful in compiling openssl-0.9.6d on sol
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello folks,
There is a possible problem with the string param handling of ENGINE_ctrl():
(At least I will get a problem...)
In the ..._ctrl()-Function of the engines a passed string
is only referenced and not copyed.
This is bad if the buffer with the passed data is overwritten...
Since in the
I agree that simply using -dumpversion makes more sense, on the
assumption that it will always only output the number.
"--version" appears to be intended to be human-readable, not
machine-readable, and its format may change at any time, as it
just did. Why keep adding sed commands that say, "oh,
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
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote:
>
>[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Jun 14 12:02:20 2002]:
>
>>
>> >From CHANGES:
>>
>> *) Rename 'des_encrypt' to 'des_encrypt1'. This avoids the clashes
>> with des_encrypt() defined on some operating systems, like Solaris
>> an
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 05:06:35PM +0200, Henri van Riel wrote:
> I am trying to compile fetchmail-5.9.12 with ssl support but something
> strange is happening. Compilation goes ok but when it's all done I do a
> 'ldd ./fetchmail' and it turns out the libraries are dynamically linked to
> the fetc
Different solutions have been proposed and I am not sure whether the
currently checked in version will finally work.
I am not sure for how long -dumpversion was supported (at least since
1994 as was reported) and I strongly consider to use -dumpversion.
Richard: you seem to have a beta version
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:46:42PM +, Gustavo A. Baratto wrote:
> I'm not being successful in compiling openssl-0.9.6d on solaris 9 with
> gcc 3.1.
We are aware that problems exist with respect to GCC 3.1. Several different
changes to config have been proposed and one fix has already been app
Hi openssl-dev,
~~/src/openssl-0.9.6d.src
root@galilee> gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.1
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is
NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
vi config
Ok, I have now finished applying the patches including the changed
prototypes for ASN1 using the DECLARE macro.
Please test the next snapshot (or beta2, which will probably be built
on Sunday evening).
Best regards,
Lutz
_
Richard-
Strange. I guess it's time to compare what we're looking at.
I'm running on a Sun Ultra-60 w/ SunOS 5.8.
I downloaded openssl-0.9.6d.tar.gz from http://www.openssl.org/source/.
I then ran the following command:
./config --prefix=/usr/local/openssl-0.9.6d \
--op
Hi openssl-dev,
~~/src/openssl-0.9.6d.src
root@galilee> gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.1
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is
NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
vi config
Richard-
Strange. I guess it's time to compare what we're looking at.
I'm running on a Sun Ultra-60 w/ SunOS 5.8.
I downloaded openssl-0.9.6d.tar.gz from http://www.openssl.org/source/.
I then ran the following command:
./config --prefix=/usr/local/openssl-0.9.6d \
--o
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote:
>
>[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Jun 14 12:02:20 2002]:
>
>>
>> >From CHANGES:
>>
>> *) Rename 'des_encrypt' to 'des_encrypt1'. This avoids the clashes
>> with des_encrypt() defined on some operating systems, like Solaris
>> a
Hello,
I'm new to openssl (sort of) and I have a problem/question.
I am trying to compile fetchmail-5.9.12 with ssl support but something
strange is happening. Compilation goes ok but when it's all done I do a
'ldd ./fetchmail' and it turns out the libraries are dynamically linked to
the fetchma
Dear Mr. Moeller,
I totally agree that it is an IE bug but unfortunately
we have to live with IE(!) and so by Microsoft doctrine (!)
it's the other programs that interact with IE that have bugs ...
Seriously, I wish to thank you and the other people in the ssl
development team for your effort
Not an OpenSSL bug, this should be discussed elsewhere (openssl-users).
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Man
Not a bug in OpenSSL, should have been sent to openssl-users
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager
Status was (automatically?) changed from "resolved" to "open" by
additional correspondance. The actual status is "resolved".
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List
The CBC vulnerability countermeasure that cannot be handled by some
broken SSL/TLS implementations can now be disabled with the new
SSL_OP_DONT_INSERT_EMPTY_FRAGMENTS option, which is also part of
SSL_OP_ALL and thus will be automatically enabled in many OpenSSL
applications designed to be compat
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 10:58:43PM +0300, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
> This problem described here:
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openssl-dev&m=99720385817987&w=2
>
> Still exists in 0.9.6d release..when can this be expected to be fixed?
As you will note, I have injected t
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Jun 14 12:02:20 2002]:
>
> >From CHANGES:
>
> *) Rename 'des_encrypt' to 'des_encrypt1'. This avoids the clashes
> with des_encrypt() defined on some operating systems, like Solaris
> and UnixWare.
> [Richard Levitte]
>
>
> Ju
From: Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sniper> >From CHANGES:
sniper>
sniper> *) Rename 'des_encrypt' to 'des_encrypt1'. This avoids the clashes
sniper> with des_encrypt() defined on some operating systems, like Solaris
sniper> and UnixWare.
sniper> [Richard Levitt
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
>
> From: Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> sniper> >From CHANGES:
> sniper>
> sniper> *) Rename 'des_encrypt' to 'des_encrypt1'. This avoids the clashes
> sniper> with des_encrypt() defined on some operating systems, like Solaris
> s
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, [iso-8859-1] Götz Babin-Ebell wrote:
> Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, it feels like it's really time for a rename (basically, change
> > "des" to "DES" in all names, and thereby follow the "convention" used
> > everywhere else in OpenSSL), or this becomes
>From CHANGES:
*) Rename 'des_encrypt' to 'des_encrypt1'. This avoids the clashes
with des_encrypt() defined on some operating systems, like Solaris
and UnixWare.
[Richard Levitte]
Just wanted to let you guys know, that also
this symbol is in use by So
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 06:05:34PM +0200, Kambez Sadeq via RT wrote:
> Any idea why web browsers such as MSIE and Opera work okay with the server?
> I'm guessing that these browsers ignore invalid records.
No, the server (actually a broken proxy to a real server apparently)
does not send inv
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 01:26:42PM +0200, Bodo Moeller via RT wrote:
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 6 18:39:34 2002]:
> > It appears the openssl guys goofed in 0.97beta. The prototype for the
> > d2i_RSAPrivateKey function in 0.9.6c, which I use, is like this:
> >
> > d2i_RSAPrivateKey(RS
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 06:05:34PM +0200, Kambez Sadeq via RT wrote:
> Any idea why web browsers such as MSIE and Opera work okay with the server?
> I'm guessing that these browsers ignore invalid records.
No, the server (actually a broken proxy to a real server apparently)
does not send inva
I'm afraid this was not a fix. Have you tried it with gcc-3.1?
I encountered this problem with the 0.9.6d snapshot.
The output of "gcc --version" with gcc version 3.1 is this
(not including the lines of hyphens):
gcc (GCC) 3.1
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:52:11 -0700,
Allen Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
allenh> I'm afraid this was not a fix. Have you tried it with gcc-3.1?
allenh> I encountered this problem with the 0.9.6d snapshot.
I tried it just now, GCCVER becamse 31, and my output
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 05:20:42PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
> However, the number of calls is astonishing - and must be significantly
> expensive, too.
Memory debugging *is* expensive. It is only enabled by default in
debug configurations, where (starting with 0.9.7) it can be disabled
by sett
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 01:26:42PM +0200, Bodo Moeller via RT wrote:
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 6 18:39:34 2002]:
> > It appears the openssl guys goofed in 0.97beta. The prototype for the
> > d2i_RSAPrivateKey function in 0.9.6c, which I use, is like this:
> >
> > d2i_RSAPrivateKey(RSA
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:52:11 -0700,
Allen Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
allenh> I'm afraid this was not a fix. Have you tried it with gcc-3.1?
allenh> I encountered this problem with the 0.9.6d snapshot.
I tried it just now, GCCVER becamse 31, and my output w
I'm afraid this was not a fix. Have you tried it with gcc-3.1?
I encountered this problem with the 0.9.6d snapshot.
The output of "gcc --version" with gcc version 3.1 is this
(not including the lines of hyphens):
gcc (GCC) 3.1
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This
I'm using a DLL that encrypt/Decrypt files, when I execute the DLL using a
foreground application works, but when I execute the DLL running under a
background program It is locking calling RAND_Status function.
This is under WinNT environment, I use the DLL in services and ATL COM
Servers and al
43 matches
Mail list logo
