Re: [openssl.org #371] undeclared MAXHOSTNAMELEN in ssltest.c(097snap)

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 02 Dec 2002 00:20:06 -0300, Ricardo Ariel Gorosito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: rgorosito> I don't know why, but USE_SOCKETS is undefined (tested with rgorosito> #error in e_os.h) and it appears to be becouse e_os.h don't rgorosito> #include sys/param.h. It seems

Re: [openssl.org #371] undeclared MAXHOSTNAMELEN in ssltest.c(097snap)

El dom, 01-12-2002 a las 15:02, Lutz Jaenicke via RT escribió: > ... > Hmm. seems to be Linux'ish to me. I just checked my > HP-UX 10.20 box and it seems, that would be the way > to go. On Linux this will include via . > > Could you please try? > > Hmm. Having this said, e_os.h already

[openssl.org #372] Test Failures on Mac OS X

[guest - Sun Dec 1 20:59:23 2002]: > [jaenicke - Sun Dec 1 13:40:12 2002]: > > > Hmm. For 0.9.7, a "Darwin" workaround has been implented for shared > > library support. Confirmed. I've downloaded, configured, built, and tested 0.9.7b4 on Mac OS X 10.2.2, and all tests passed. Thanks, and wel

RE[3]: [openssl.org #366] OpenVMS openssl-0.9.7-beta4.tar.gz

O'Oh, more embarressment. I have just (accidentally) deleted your reply. Would you mind resending. TIA. >>Download it from the RT ticket. RT2 kindly did not sent the 100k attachement >>to the whole list :-) > >Oh great! Now a whole list is going to know that this instruction is >meaningless t

Re: Trying to understand bn_div_words()

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 02 Dec 2002 01:19:21 +0100 (CET), Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: levitte> bn_div_words(0xC383,0x838B4B53,0x8000) Hmm, a call like that gave me an aruthmetic error on Linux... -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMA

Trying to understand bn_div_words()

I don't understand what BN_div() expects from bn_div_words(). I see calls like this: bn_div_words(0xC383,0x838B4B53,0x8000) and I wonder what the hell is expected to come out of that. The result of dividing 0xC383838B4B53 with 0x8000 is 0x18707, which can't be correctly repr

Re: OpenSSL and compression using ZLIB

Hi there, On November 29, 2002 04:22 pm, pobox wrote: > Geoff, > > I can't speak for Kenneth, but I'm not sure I get what you're saying > here. The data is first compressed and then encrypted according to > RFC2246. In my mind, once the application hands the data to OpenSSL > via SSL_write() or BI

[openssl.org #371] undeclared MAXHOSTNAMELEN in ssltest.c (097snap)

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sat Nov 30 23:00:17 2002]: > Building OpenSSL 0.9.7 beta4 and snap 20021129 on RedHat 8.0 (gcc 3.2 & > glibc 2.3) configured with 'no-asm shared --with-krb5-flavor="MIT"' make > fail with undeclared MAXHOSTNAMELEN in ssltest.c (line 693). > After adding #include build

[STATUS] OpenSSL (Sun 1-Dec-2002)

OpenSSL STATUS Last modified at __ $Date: 2002/11/21 22:39:08 $ DEVELOPMENT STATE o OpenSSL 0.9.8: Under development... o OpenSSL 0.9.7-beta4: Released on November 19th, 2002 Debian GNU/Linux (kernel version

[openssl.org #372] Test Failures on Mac OS X

[jaenicke - Sun Dec 1 13:40:12 2002]: > Hmm. For 0.9.7, a "Darwin" workaround has been implented for shared > library support. I'll download the 0.9.7 beta and give it a shot, just as soon as openssl.org is back up. __ OpenSSL

Re: [openssl.org #366] OpenVMS openssl-0.9.7-beta4.tar.gz

On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 02:01:12PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] via RT wrote: > > >Download it from the RT ticket. RT2 kindly did not sent the 100k attachement > >to the whole list :-) > > Oh great! Now a whole list is going to know that this instruction is > meaningless to me :^) Could you explain

Re: [openssl.org #366] OpenVMS openssl-0.9.7-beta4.tar.gz

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 1 Dec 2002 11:48:27 +0100 (MET), "[EMAIL PROTECTED] via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: rt> happy to try the attached file ... as soon as you attach it! Don't use any of them. It still doesn't work for all numbers. EDIV is very hard to use for divisors th

Re: [openssl.org #366] OpenVMS openssl-0.9.7-beta4.tar.gz

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 1 Dec 2002 11:48:27 +0100 (MET), "[EMAIL PROTECTED] via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: rt> happy to try the attached file ... as soon as you attach it! Don't use any of them. It still doesn't work for all numbers. EDIV is very hard to use for divisors tha

RE[2]: [openssl.org #366] OpenVMS openssl-0.9.7-beta4.tar.gz

>Download it from the RT ticket. RT2 kindly did not sent the 100k attachement >to the whole list :-) Oh great! Now a whole list is going to know that this instruction is meaningless to me :^) Could you explain what is meant by "Download it from the RT ticket." Thanks.

[openssl.org #372] Test Failures on Mac OS X

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sat Nov 30 23:01:08 2002]: > I'd like to report test failures on Mac OS X 10.2.2. As has been pointed out by Nils Larsch, the problem has already been discussed in the FAQ. Hmm. For 0.9.7, a "Darwin" workaround has been implented for shared library support. Maybe I a

Re: [openssl.org #366] OpenVMS openssl-0.9.7-beta4.tar.gz

On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 11:48:27AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] via RT wrote: > happy to try the attached file ... as soon as you attach it! > > (with neither email :^) Download it from the RT ticket. RT2 kindly did not sent the 100k attachement to the whole list :-) Best regards, Lutz --

Re: [openssl.org #372] Test Failures on Mac OS X

David Wheeler via RT wrote: > I'd like to report test failures on Mac OS X 10.2.2. I'm writing up an > article for MacDevCenter.com (an ORA site) on building Apache with > mod_ssl support that includes building OpenSSL. It seems to work just > fine, in general, as long as you don't run the tests. S

RE[2]: [openssl.org #366] OpenVMS openssl-0.9.7-beta4.tar.gz

Hi Richard, happy to try the attached file ... as soon as you attach it! (with neither email :^) Regards, Mark. ++ Mark Daniel http://wasd.vsm.com.au/adelaide mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTE