On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 1:31:22 AM UTC-5, Mouse wrote: > > IMHO the two don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Ideally, one should be > able to “make test” that runs *in the build directory* *before* “make > install”, but then one should be able to run “cryptest.exe v” *after* the > installation. > > I suspect the right way of addressing this is making “cryptest.exe” aware > of potential locations of “TestData/”, etc. > > Comments? >
I agree with you, but I was not going to hold up things based on it. Right now, the only place 'make check' works is in the build directory. I think adding CRYPTOPP_DATA_DIR is a step in the right direction because things will work in both cases. Users will do nothing, and it will continue to "just work" for them. Maintainers will set CRYPTOPP_DATA_DIR and it will "just work" for them. So what would you like to do: (1) do nothing (2) add the CRYPTOPP_DATA_DIR define patch (3) integrate CRYPTOPP_DATA_DIR define into DataDir() class patch (2) is what Debian and Fedora do. (3) is kind of what we have, but not quite. We require "PREFIX=$CRYPTOPP_DATA_DIR" during compile and install. Its not currently compatible with Debian and Fedora's -DCRYPTOPP_DATA_DIR="..." during compile. So it will require a little work. (3) also has a little risk associated with it. It means we are introducing an attacker controlled input after an install by always including CWD or PWD. I think the risk is minor, but its still more than was previously present. Jeff -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crypto++ Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
