On 30-05-17 17:25, Salz, Rich via openssl-users wrote:
>> The results are both functional, but the v102l build is missing
>> sha{224|256|384|512} digests
>
> Right; those digests are not in 1.0.2
They are, they're just not advertised:
$ openssl version
OpenSSL 1.0.2k 26 Jan 2017
$ openssl
On 28/05/2017 23:31, Salz, Rich via openssl-users wrote:
The openssl program will use the wrong libssl.so and libcrypto.so.
Yes, got it.
But that's small potatoes compared to everyone else finding the wrong shared library, and
just saying "use rpath" doesn't help all those others.
Change the
On 5/30/17 9:01 AM, Jakob Bohm wrote:
Actually, in my testing of earlier 1.0.x releases, sha256 etc. are
only missing from the help message, they are actually there, also as
commands.
On 5/30/17 9:14 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> Then I've misunderstood the presence of the "-DSHA256_ASM" flag.
>>
> Then I've misunderstood the presence of the "-DSHA256_ASM" flag.
>
> What's it specifically used for?
To remind me to double-check my answers? :(
Sorry, they are present. The difference is that the help message in 1.0.2
isn't complete. Did you try the commands directly?
--
openssl-users
The only reason why you would ever want to use RPATH with OpenSSL is
because you need to install a particular old version of libssl (or
libcrypto) that has the same SONAME as the system-default, but where you
don't want to use that system-default one -- but why would you want to
do that? Security
On 30/05/2017 17:20, PGNet Dev wrote:
I'm building separate local instances of latest Openssl v1.1.0 & v1.0.2 on
linux64, to keep not-yet-v110-compliant apps happy.
The results are both functional, but the v102l build is missing
sha{224|256|384|512} digests
v 1.0.2l
On 29/05/2017 16:39, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
...
The only reason why you would ever want to use RPATH with OpenSSL is
because you need to install a particular old version of libssl (or
libcrypto) that has the same SONAME as the system-default, but where you
don't want to use that system-default
On 5/30/17 8:25 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
The results are both functional, but the v102l build is missing
sha{224|256|384|512} digests
Right; those digests are not in 1.0.2
Then I've misunderstood the presence of the "-DSHA256_ASM" flag.
What's it specifically used for?
--
openssl-users
> The results are both functional, but the v102l build is missing
> sha{224|256|384|512} digests
Right; those digests are not in 1.0.2
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
I'm building separate local instances of latest Openssl v1.1.0 & v1.0.2 on
linux64, to keep not-yet-v110-compliant apps happy.
The results are both functional, but the v102l build is missing
sha{224|256|384|512} digests
v 1.0.2l
/usr/local/openssl10/bin/openssl version
10 matches
Mail list logo
