On Sun, Feb 04, 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can't remember why this was needed?
For compatibility with older versions of libdes, I'm sure.
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Develop
From: Ulf Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ulf> On Sun, Feb 04, 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ulf>
ulf> > Can't remember why this was needed?
ulf>
ulf> For compatibility with older versions of libdes, I'm sure.
Very much older, as in SSLeay-era :-).
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [
Ulf Moeller wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Can't remember why this was needed?
>
> For compatibility with older versions of libdes, I'm sure.
Well, its defined in the header, so I can't see why you need it for
compatibility. What I meant was I couldn't remem
From: Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ben> > For compatibility with older versions of libdes, I'm sure.
ben>
ben> Well, its defined in the header, so I can't see why you need it for
ben> compatibility.
Share libraries...
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chairman@Sta
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
>
> From: Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ben> > For compatibility with older versions of libdes, I'm sure.
> ben>
> ben> Well, its defined in the header, so I can't see why you need it for
> ben> compatibility.
>
> Share libraries...
You mean binary com
From: Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ben> You mean binary compatibility, which we are well known not to have?
True, but there have been maniacs out there building shared libraries
anyway, and I suspect Eric kept the function around for binary
compatibility. I can see no other reason why he woul
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
>
> From: Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ben> You mean binary compatibility, which we are well known not to have?
>
> True, but there have been maniacs out there building shared libraries
> anyway, and I suspect Eric kept the function around for binary
>
