From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 1 20:43:26 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C203B1065678; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:43:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from simon@nitro.dk) Received: from mx.nitro.dk (unknown [77.75.165.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8165F8FC29; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:43:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arthur.nitro.dk (arthur.bofh [192.168.2.3]) by mx.nitro.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658892D4841; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:43:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by arthur.nitro.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4F5105C30; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:43:25 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:43:25 +0200 From: "Simon L. Nielsen" To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20100401204324.GB1301@arthur.nitro.dk> References: <201004011519.o31FJpw2068549@svn.freebsd.org> <4BB4E3DF.8030407@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BB4E3DF.8030407@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r206046 - in head/crypto/openssl: . apps crypto crypto/asn1 crypto/bio crypto/bn crypto/bn/asm crypto/engine crypto/evp crypto/ocsp crypto/rand engines fips ssl X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 20:43:26 -0000 B0;253;0cOn 2010.04.01 11:20:15 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 04/01/10 08:19, Simon L. Nielsen wrote: > > Author: simon > > Date: Thu Apr 1 15:19:51 2010 > > New Revision: 206046 > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/206046 > > > > Log: > > Merge OpenSSL 0.9.8n into head. > > Just curious, why not 1.0.0? The main reason is that 0.9.8n is needed for MFC to 7 and 8, so I prefered to get it tested a bit in -CURRENT first while I have the chance. I also prefered to get the security fixes for 0.9.8m into head faster - I don't know how much trouble 1.0.0 will be, but it will probably take some work. That said, given how long OpenSSL 1.0 has been under way it would have been perfect to commit it today of all days :-). -- Simon L. Nielsen