On Tuesday, 16 April 2013 13:19:39 CEST, Richard Moore wrote:
> users of long term support versions of
> linux such as rhel would be in a similar position
RHEL6.x actually shipped with openssl-1.0.0-4.el6 (now at
openssl-1.0.0-27.el6_4.2).
In case RHEL5 matters for you, it shipped with openssl-0
On 16 April 2013 19:16, Raul Metsma wrote:
> We saw weird behaviours when mixing in our application openssl 1.0.0 and
> using Security.framework/TokenD.
> Using stock openssl resolved this.
Can you provide a bit more detail on this?
Cheers
Rich.
___
We saw weird behaviours when mixing in our application openssl 1.0.0 and using
Security.framework/TokenD.
Using stock openssl resolved this.
Raul
On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Peter Hartmann wrote:
> On 04/16/2013 01:19 PM, Richard Moore wrote:
>> 2) We could say 1.0.0 is the minimum.
>
> +1
>
On 04/16/2013 01:19 PM, Richard Moore wrote:
> 2) We could say 1.0.0 is the minimum.
+1
This is the de-facto standard already anyhow, at least for me; i.e. I
have been acting like "if it works on my PC (1.0.x) and goes through CI
(apparently 1.0.x) it is good enough".
So I am all for noting thi
Currently, the ssl support in Qt aims to support a wide range of
openssl version but the actual set isn't really defined. The platforms
vary too - windows doesn't bundle openssl so users are expected to add
their own, linux generally has a reasonably modern version, macos
includes openssl but only
