| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| * | In version numbers, there is just one "M" nybble. | Bodo Möller | 2001-07-10 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | Bump the shared library version (should have been done a while ago). | Richard Levitte | 2000-10-13 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | Update the status and version number to 0.9.7-dev. | Richard Levitte | 2000-09-24 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Time to build the release. Bump the version info accordingly. | Richard Levitte | 2000-09-24 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Time to build beta 3. Bump the version numbers accordingly.OpenSSL_0_9_6-beta3 | Richard Levitte | 2000-09-21 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | A new beta is being released. Change the version numbers | Richard Levitte | 2000-09-17 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | | | | accordingly. | ||||
| * | Time to release a beta. Change the version numbers and dates | Richard Levitte | 2000-09-11 | 1 | -3/+3 |
| | | | | | accordingly. | ||||
| * | Redo and enhance the support for building shared libraries. Currently | Richard Levitte | 2000-07-21 | 1 | -0/+53 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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... | ||||
| * | Tagging has now been done, update to the next possible version (I keep | Richard Levitte | 2000-04-01 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | | | | a low profile, so we don't get discontinuity in the numbering...) | ||||
| * | Building version 0.9.5a | Richard Levitte | 2000-04-01 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Tagging has been done, update to next probable version... | Richard Levitte | 2000-03-23 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Time for version 0.9.5a beta2 | Richard Levitte | 2000-03-23 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | | | | | I know it's earlier than announced. The high amount of problems in beta1 warants this, however. | ||||
| * | Tagging done, we move to the next possible. | Richard Levitte | 2000-03-20 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Change the version text, it's time to release the first beta of 0.9.5a. | Richard Levitte | 2000-03-20 | 1 | -4/+4 |
| | | |||||
| * | Change the notation and coding of the version to be able to contain | Richard Levitte | 2000-03-19 | 1 | -7/+18 |
| | | | | | | | 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. | ||||
| * | Tagging has been done, time to switch to 0.9.6-dev. | Richard Levitte | 2000-02-28 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Time for a release | Richard Levitte | 2000-02-28 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | For lack of a better name, this is now called 0.9.5beta3-dev until the | Richard Levitte | 2000-02-27 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | | | | release. | ||||
| * | Change version string to reflect the release of beta 2.OpenSSL_0_9_5beta2 | Richard Levitte | 2000-02-27 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | Clarification. | Bodo Möller | 2000-02-25 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | Version 0.9.5beta2-dev (so that the next snapshot will not | Bodo Möller | 2000-02-24 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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 ?) | ||||
| * | 0.9.5beta1OpenSSL_0_9_5beta1 | Richard Levitte | 2000-02-24 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Bump after tarball rolling. | Ralf S. Engelschall | 1999-08-09 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | | | | Friends, feel free to start again hacking for 0.9.5... ;) | ||||
| * | Bump version to 0.9.4OpenSSL_0_9_4 | Ralf S. Engelschall | 1999-08-09 | 1 | -2/+3 |
| | | |||||
| * | And carry on with development... | Ben Laurie | 1999-05-29 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Oops!OpenSSL_0_9_3a | Ben Laurie | 1999-05-29 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | Prepare to release 0.9.3a | Ben Laurie | 1999-05-29 | 1 | -3/+3 |
| | | |||||
| * | Move on to 0.9.4. | Ben Laurie | 1999-05-24 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Here we go: prepare to roll 0.9.3.OpenSSL_0_9_3 | Ben Laurie | 1999-05-24 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Move to beta 3. | Ben Laurie | 1999-05-23 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Prepare for final(?) beta.OpenSSL_0_9_3beta2 | Ben Laurie | 1999-05-23 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | On seconds thoughts, the version number shoud _never_ decrease. | Ben Laurie | 1999-05-20 | 1 | -7/+9 |
| | | |||||
| * | Revert. | Ben Laurie | 1999-05-20 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Prepare for a beta release. | Ben Laurie | 1999-05-20 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Note that the numbering scheme used to be different. | Bodo Möller | 1999-05-19 | 1 | -0/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | Switch to new version numbering scheme. | Ben Laurie | 1999-05-19 | 1 | -2/+11 |
| | | |||||
| * | Protect applications from failing to compile when they | Ralf S. Engelschall | 1999-05-18 | 1 | -0/+5 |
| | | | | | try to directly include opensslv.h. | ||||
| * | pre-0.9.3 development version. | Ulf Möller | 1999-04-01 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | Fix security hole. | Ben Laurie | 1999-03-22 | 1 | -0/+3 |
 |
index : openssl.git | |
| rhe's working repository |
| aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats |