> That's my issue. I cannot get a more recent bind version to stay to stable on
> one box.
Then I think that's going to be a tough issue, and you'll either have to modify
that source or stay at 1.0.2
___
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:05:58AM -0700, The Doctor wrote:
> > The bind code is what needs to be adjusted, given that openssl 1.1 is
> > intentionally introducing API changes and removing direct access to many
> > structures. It seems quite unlikely that an EoL version of a
> > third-party
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 08:53:49PM -0600, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On 01/19/2016 05:37 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> > Tried to compile an old bind and ran into
>
> Why?
>
> > What needs to be adjusted?
> >
> >
>
> The bind code is what needs to be adjusted, given that openssl 1.1 is
> intentionally
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 06:11:16PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > That's my issue. I cannot get a more recent bind version to stay to stable
> > on
> > one box.
>
> Then I think that's going to be a tough issue, and you'll either have to
> modify that source or stay at 1.0.2
>
Source
On 01/19/2016 05:37 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> Tried to compile an old bind and ran into
Why?
> What needs to be adjusted?
>
>
The bind code is what needs to be adjusted, given that openssl 1.1 is
intentionally introducing API changes and removing direct access to many
structures. It seems quite
