On 2013-07-12 20:27-0000 David Cole wrote:
It’s a bad bad really bad idea to make the build of OpenSSL “in-house” as
you’ve been calling it... CMake SHOULD use the system openssl for distributions
that have one already.
If there are problems with that approach, then the problems should be
addressed, but bringing a security component into “we have our own custom build
of that which you must use”-land is NEVER a good idea.
Just my opinion. Feel free to flame me if I’m wrong.
Hmmm. Now that you have brought up the security aspect, I agree that
an in-house build is probably a bad idea. But only one "bad". "bad
bad really bad" is probably over the top. And that is your monster
flame for the day. :-)
Seriously, though, what do you do in the Windows case where
there is no "trusted" distribution to build the openssl library for you? I
presume you download some Windows binary from a location you trust, but
what location is that?
Alan
__________________________
Alan W. Irwin
Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca).
Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state
implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); the Time
Ephemerides project (timeephem.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting
software package (plplot.sf.net); the libLASi project
(unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net);
and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net).
__________________________
Linux-powered Science
__________________________
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
