- 10 2月, 1999 3 次提交
-
-
由 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.
-
由 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.
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 01 2月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 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.
-
- 31 1月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
add x509v3.h to mkdef.pl list of include files.
-
- 30 1月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 20 1月, 1999 2 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 19 1月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
of 'make errors' without causing huge re-organisations of files when a new code is added.
-
- 17 1月, 1999 5 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 11 1月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 08 1月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 07 1月, 1999 3 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
Contributed by: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
soon - I intend to do a lot of it!).
-
- 01 1月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
- 31 12月, 1998 1 次提交
-
-
由 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: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- 23 12月, 1998 2 次提交
-
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
- 22 12月, 1998 2 次提交
-
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
- 21 12月, 1998 3 次提交
-
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-