| From: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 4 pgcrypto regressions failures - 1 unsolved |
| Date: | 2005-07-11 15:51:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20050711155100.GA77601@winnie.fuhr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:41:35PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> When I saw that only 0.9.7[efg] have new signature I even
> considered macrofying that. But now with 0.9.8 again different
> I really would like to not to touch it, as I have no idea which
> one will be the stable signature.
>
> Comments?
Sounds like a question for the OpenSSL developers. If a search
through their list archives or CVS repository doesn't yield the
answer, then maybe asking the question on one of their lists will.
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2005-07-11 15:58:05 | Re: 4 pgcrypto regressions failures - 1 unsolved |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-11 15:46:29 | Re: 4 pgcrypto regressions failures - 1 unsolved |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2005-07-11 15:58:05 | Re: 4 pgcrypto regressions failures - 1 unsolved |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-11 15:46:29 | Re: 4 pgcrypto regressions failures - 1 unsolved |