[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lfs-base-1.3.0.T



We are already using 1.3.0 in production, so 1.3.1 would be in order.

On Jan 17, 2005, at 11:20 AM, Liam Hoekenga wrote:

lfs-base-1.3.0.T is lacking one thing I'd like to role into it - openssl 0.9.7e.
There are three command files using it..


lfs-mr-bruteforce.K:p lfs-base-1.3.0.T
umweb-apphost.K:p lfs-base-1.3.0.T
umweb-webmail-dev.K:p lfs-base-1.3.0.T

Would anyone object if I roled openssl 0.9.7e into lfs-base.T and
lfs-base-1.3.0.T?  Or should I cut a new release (1.3.0?  1.3.0a?)