> If you say that removing the #ifdef instead of removing the whole code block
> that it contained was a mistake, then I shall take you at your word and
> refrain
> from harping on *too* much about how naughty it was to have a functional
> change hidden away in a commit which simply entitled itse
On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 12:56 +, Salz, Rich via RT wrote:
> I think that instead of the #ifdef being removed, the if() test
> should be removed. This was my mistake.
Like this, then...
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/694 for HEAD
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/695 for 1.0.2
I
On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 12:56 +, Salz, Rich via RT wrote:
> I think that instead of the #ifdef being removed, the if() test
> should be removed. This was my mistake.
Like this, then...
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/694 for HEAD
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/695 for 1.0.2
I
On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 17:31 +, Salz, Rich via RT wrote:
> And update the PR to say that it also closes this ticket :)
Well, it can be a separate PR if the first is already merged...
--
dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe:
On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 17:31 +, Salz, Rich via RT wrote:
> And update the PR to say that it also closes this ticket :)
Well, it can be a separate PR if the first is already merged...
--
dwmw2
--
Ticket here: http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=4175
Please log in as guest with pas
And update the PR to say that it also closes this ticket :)
--
Ticket here: http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=4175
Please log in as guest with password guest if prompted
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 17:20 +, Rich Salz via RT wrote:
> can you make a PR (separate from the one you have for UEFI) that does
> the right
> thing? Or attach it to this ticket?
> I've kinda lost track :(
Oops, forgot this one in the set of patches I lined up today. Will add
it.
--
dwmw2
s
On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 12:56 +, Salz, Rich via RT wrote:
> I think that instead of the #ifdef being removed, the if() test
> should be removed.
> This was my mistake.
What was the verdict here?
I'm trying to update my builds, as promised this morning. But EDK2 has
updated to 1.0.2e and i
On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 12:56 +, Salz, Rich via RT wrote:
> I think that instead of the #ifdef being removed, the if() test
> should be removed.
> This was my mistake.
What was the verdict here?
I'm trying to update my builds, as promised this morning. But EDK2 has
updated to 1.0.2e and i
ng, Qin
> Cc: openssl-dev@openssl.org
> Subject: RE: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #4175] Add new macro or PKCS7 flag to
> disable the check for both data and content
>
> I think that instead of the #ifdef being removed, the if() test should be
>
I think that instead of the #ifdef being removed, the if() test should be
removed.
This was my mistake.
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
11 matches
Mail list logo