Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > PLEASE don't use HTML mail. > > On 4/4/08, Douglas E. Engert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I will for now, at least until you can get the cross compile working, >> and can produce a SCB with installer, that will run on XP and Vista, >> for use by CSPs for login, IE and pkcs11 for other browsers and mailers. > > CSP11 will not be provided as it is not maintained and it is low quality. > If you care about Windows, please help us and (I guess your users) find a > better > working solution we can provide.
We were testing with IdAlly, and that was working with opensc 0.11.4 > > Also, please look at PuttySC [1] and see if it provides a solution, > and can replace > the patched putty in scb. Actually we use Kerberos, and use a PuTTY with GSSAPI. Don't have a need for the PuTTY in SCB. > >> The complexity issue works both ways. By doing cross compiling you have >> now introduced additional packages to build it, using derived header files. > > I don't understand. The additional complexity is the need for the wing packages and a Linux system to use to build. > >> Perl us already required to build, so iut could be used. >> > > Will perl be a requirement after you can generate the .def files without > this script? > As far as I can see perl will not be required. Probable not. > Maybe a simple C program to do sed like string replacement is a better > solution. That would work. Will look at it. > >>> Alternatively, I can produce .rc out of rc.in when we distribute >>> the package, so Windows build will find already prepared .rc file >>> with correct version. >>> >>> >> I like that better. I don't believe there is any requirement >> to build from SVN using Windows only. > > I don't understand... > Do you agree to generate this files into the package tarball, and > not build directly from svn? Yes. I am not building dirctly from Windows either. I have the source in AFS and accessable by Windows, Solaris ands Unix, so I can build all three from the same source. When using svn, I have to run the ./bootstrap on the source directory. After that the builds are done in separate directories. > >> the SDK has winSCard.h and WinSmCrd.h. This then goes back to the >> choice of using the Windows header files vs the ming/opensc versions. >> >> The use of the part10.h from the previous verison of OpenSC, that appears >> to be based on some PCSC standard, would also be more acceptable. > > I've committed other fix for this at revision 3460, please check if it > works for you. OK. > >> A philosophy of using as much of the vendor's build environment including >> header files as possible, in order to avoid compatibility problems. > > Are you aware of any compatibility problem? No. > >> Actually I don't like two build systems. I would prefer the Windows based >> build over the MinG approach. > > Two = different for Windows and none Windows. > > Alon. > Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree :-) > -- Douglas E. Engert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439 (630) 252-5444 _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
