e55818b9d3
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.
32 lines
1.2 KiB
C
32 lines
1.2 KiB
C
#ifndef HEADER_OPENSSLV_H
|
|
#define HEADER_OPENSSLV_H
|
|
|
|
/* Numeric release version identifier:
|
|
* MMNNFFPPS: major minor fix patch status
|
|
* The status nibble has one of the values 0 for development, 1 to e for betas
|
|
* 1 to 14, and f for release. The patch level is exactly that.
|
|
* For example:
|
|
* 0.9.3-dev 0x00903000
|
|
* 0.9.3beta1 0x00903001
|
|
* 0.9.3beta2-dev 0x00903002
|
|
* 0.9.3beta2 0x00903002 (same as ...beta2-dev)
|
|
* 0.9.3 0x0090300f
|
|
* 0.9.3a 0x0090301f
|
|
* 0.9.4 0x0090400f
|
|
* 1.2.3z 0x102031af
|
|
*
|
|
* For continuity reasons (because 0.9.5 is already out, and is coded
|
|
* 0x00905100), between 0.9.5 and 0.9.6 the coding of the patch level
|
|
* part is slightly different, by setting the highest bit. This means
|
|
* that 0.9.5a looks like this: 0x0090581f. At 0.9.6, we can start
|
|
* with 0x0090600S...
|
|
*
|
|
* (Prior to 0.9.3-dev a different scheme was used: 0.9.2b is 0x0922.)
|
|
* (Prior to 0.9.5a beta1, a different scheme was used: MMNNFFRBB for
|
|
* major minor fix final patch/beta)
|
|
*/
|
|
#define OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER 0x00905811L
|
|
#define OPENSSL_VERSION_TEXT "OpenSSL 0.9.5a beta1 (dev) 18 Mar 2000"
|
|
#define OPENSSL_VERSION_PTEXT " part of " OPENSSL_VERSION_TEXT
|
|
|
|
#endif /* HEADER_OPENSSLV_H */
|