accordingly.

accordingly.

there's support for building under Linux and True64 (using examples
from the programming manuals), including versioning that is currently
the same as OpenSSL versions but should really be a different series.

With this change, it's up to the users to decide if they want shared
libraries as well as the static ones.  This decision now has to be
done at configuration time (well, not really, those who know what they
do can still do it the same way as before).

The OpenSSL programs (openssl and the test programs) are currently
always linked statically, but this may change in the future in a
configurable manner.  The necessary makefile variables to enable this
are in place.

Also note that I have done absolutely nothing about the Windows target
to get something similar.  On the other hand, DLLs are already the
default there, but without versioning, and I've no idea what the
possibilities for such a thing are there...

a low profile, so we don't get discontinuity in the numbering...)

I know it's earlier than announced.  The high amount of problems in
beta1 warants this, however.

both a patch level and a beta status.  IMHO, it also makes more sense
to have beta status be part of the development status than to have it
be an alternate name for patch levels under special conditions.

release.

claim to be 0.9.5beta1).

(Are the version number examples correct -- the same numerical
code for:
 * 0.9.3beta2-dev 0x00903002
 * 0.9.3beta2     0x00903002
?)

Friends, feel free to start again hacking for 0.9.5... ;)

try to directly include opensslv.h.