1. 16 2月, 1999 1 次提交
  2. 13 2月, 1999 1 次提交
  3. 10 2月, 1999 3 次提交
    • R
      Remove one more totally bogus source file. · 4a16967b
      Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
      This one is exactly the same as ssl_sess.c.
      Thanks to Adam Goodman <adam@a-domain.com> for hint.
      4a16967b
    • R
      First cut for a very conservative source tree cleanup: · 155d7a0e
      Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
      1. merge various obsolete readme texts into doc/ssleay.txt
         where we collect the old documents and readme texts.
      
      2. remove the first part of files where I'm already sure that we no longer need
         them because of three reasons: either they are just temporary files which
         were left by Eric or they are preserved original files where I've verified
         that the diff is also available in the CVS via "cvs diff -rSSLeay_0_8_1b"
         or they were renamed (as it was definitely the case for the crypto/md/
         stuff).
      
      We've still a horrible mess under crypto/bn/asm/.  There for a lot of files
      I'm sure whether we need them or not. So, when someone knows it better, feel
      free to cleanup there.
      155d7a0e
    • B
      More exactitude with function arguments. · bf5dcd13
      Ben Laurie 提交于
      bf5dcd13
  4. 01 2月, 1999 1 次提交
    • D
      Fix various stuff: that VC++ 5.0 chokes on: · 9b3086fe
      Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
      1. Add *lots* of missing prototypes for static ssl functions.
      2. VC++ doesn't understand the 'LL' suffix for 64 bits constants: change bn.org
      3. Add a few missing prototypes in pem.org
      Fix mk1mf.pl so it outputs a Makefile that doesn't choke Win95.
      Fix mkdef.pl so it doesn't truncate longer names.
      9b3086fe
  5. 31 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  6. 30 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  7. 20 1月, 1999 2 次提交
  8. 19 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  9. 17 1月, 1999 5 次提交
  10. 11 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  11. 08 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  12. 07 1月, 1999 3 次提交
  13. 01 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  14. 31 12月, 1998 1 次提交
    • R
      Fix version stuff: · 9cb0969f
      Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
      1. The already released version was 0.9.1c and not 0.9.1b
      
      2. The next release should be 0.9.2 and not 0.9.1d, because
         first the changes are already too large, second we should avoid any more
         0.9.1x confusions and third, the Apache version semantics of
         VERSION.REVISION.PATCHLEVEL for the version string is reasonable (and here
         .2 is already just a patchlevel and not major change).
      tVS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      9cb0969f
  15. 23 12月, 1998 2 次提交
  16. 22 12月, 1998 2 次提交
  17. 21 12月, 1998 3 次提交