ASN1_TIME fixes.

New function c2i_ASN1_OBJECT().

like Malloc, Realloc and especially Free conflict with already existing names
on some operating systems or other packages.  That is reason enough to change
the names of the OpenSSL memory allocation macros to something that has a
better chance of being unique, like prepending them with OPENSSL_.

This change includes all the name changes needed throughout all C files.

Fix bug which would free up a public key
twice if the verify callback tried to
continue after a signature failure.

where the new functions are mentioned.

eliminate some of the -Wcast-qual warnings (debug-ben-strict target)

Tidy up CRYPTO_EX_DATA structures.

Remove references to 'TXT' in -inform and -outform switches.

SSL_CTX and SSL, functions to set them and defaults if no values set.

yet.

Add a function X509_STORE_CTX_purpose_inherit() which implements the logic
of "inheriting" purpose and trust from a parent structure and using a default:
this will be used in the SSL code and possibly future S/MIME.

Partial documentation of the 'verify' utility. Still need to document how all
the extension checking works and the various error messages.

trust settings of the root CA.

After a few fixes it seems to work OK.

Still need to add support to SSL and S/MIME code though.

at present. However nothing enables it yet so this doesn't
matter :-)

This will soon be complemented with MacOS specific source code files and
INSTALL.MacOS.

I (Andy) have decided to get rid of a number of #include <sys/types.h>.
I've verified it's ok (both by examining /usr/include/*.h and compiling)
on a number of Unix platforms. Unfortunately I don't have Windows box
to verify this on. I really appreciate if somebody could try to compile
it and contact me a.s.a.p. in case a problem occurs.

Submitted by: Roy Wood <roy@centricsystems.ca>
Reviewed by: Andy Polyakov <appro@fy.chalmers.se>

Submitted by:
Reviewed by:
PR:

callbacks.

Submitted by:
Reviewed by:
PR:

Submitted by:
Reviewed by:
PR:

Submitted by:
Reviewed by:
PR:

Pointed out by Alexander Tyshlek <tyshlek@fuib.com> and Peter Gutmann
<pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>

handling to x509.c

1. The already released version was 0.9.1c and not 0.9.1b

2. The next release should be 0.9.2 and not 0.9.1d, because
   first the changes are already too large, second we should avoid any more
   0.9.1x confusions and third, the Apache version semantics of
   VERSION.REVISION.PATCHLEVEL for the version string is reasonable (and here
   .2 is already just a patchlevel and not major change).
tVS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------