You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
).
First, these are currently implemented as bitflags!, but the way I see it, these constants are no bitflags. It compiles, but people might try to | the flags.
Second, there is an OpenSSL version restriction (#[cfg(ossl102)]) on the constants, but these constants already existed in 0.9.8 (and probably even earlier, but that's the oldest version I have checked out).
I wouldn't complain, but I have also implemented X509_PURPOSE_xxx in PR #1598 and now I have a conflict: shall I keep the existing version or shall I replace it with mine?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I will make a PR for this. I also think, it is better to move the X509_PURPOSE definitions from x509/verify.rs to x509/mod.rs, as it is also used by store.rs (X509StoreBuilderRef::set_purpose()).
I'm in the process of updating my PR #1598 branch and hit a problem with the implementation of
X509_PURPOSE_xxx
constants (rust-openssl/openssl/src/x509/verify.rs
Line 197 in 2c0c391
First, these are currently implemented as
bitflags!
, but the way I see it, these constants are no bitflags. It compiles, but people might try to|
the flags.Second, there is an OpenSSL version restriction (
#[cfg(ossl102)]
) on the constants, but these constants already existed in 0.9.8 (and probably even earlier, but that's the oldest version I have checked out).I wouldn't complain, but I have also implemented
X509_PURPOSE_xxx
in PR #1598 and now I have a conflict: shall I keep the existing version or shall I replace it with mine?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: