I won't argue the value of a good package, and specifically a good
configuration management system, but the amount of work to maintain crypto++
across a wide range of systems as part of the base distribution would tax
further developments. So I feel it should be left to the implementer to
package, an interested third party, or for another group to include with
their system (like Redhat, Gentoo, *BSD, etc.). There are a number of
libraries that have taken this approach already with some success.
73,
Shawn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Lovelace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Regarding warnings
>
> I disagree. Even though the lib is for developers, end users still have
> to compile and install it if they want to link their favorite program
> (via *BSD ports, Gentoo Portage system, *insert your dependency tracking
> system here*). In the windows world less of a big deal, the average
> user just downloads a bin. However, I do not want to ask the users of
> my software to edit makefiles, etc, when they build. The advantages of
> a good "packaging" system are undeniable.
>
> Shawn Masters wrote:
>
> > It has always been accessible to unix users. Unpack and build. I
> > think what you are talking about is packaging. Considering this is
> aimed at
> > developers I think time would be better spent on code then packaging,
> but if
> > you feel inclined...
> >
> > 73,
> > Shawn
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Jesse Lovelace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:11 PM
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Subject: Re: Regarding warnings
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I would have to say that this can be done but the present build system
> >>>that you are using does not allow for you to customize builds. Have you
> >>>considered using automake and autoconf for building on Linux systems? I
> >>>have created a Makefile.am file for crypto++ 5.1 for use with a
> project.
> >>>I can send that to you. Do you want it?
> >>
> >>I would like it! I would love to see Crypto++ be much more accessable
> >>to Unix-type systems. The FreeBSD port is a good start (it works well),
> >>but rpm, deb, and Gentoo Portage would be stellar additions. I had made
> >>an autoconf/make release for 4.2 in tar.gz, but I'm not the best
> >>autoconf hacker so it only offered basic functionality.
> >
> >
> >
>
