Hello, On Jun 6, 2011, at 18:53 , Viktor Tarasov wrote: > Le 06/06/2011 15:31, Martin Paljak a écrit : >> Hello, >> On May 29, 2011, at 10:05 , Viktor Tarasov wrote: >>>>> I have a xulrunner application that uses the old modified version of >>>>> opensc.dll and that needs to be used with the actual OpenSC PKCS#11 >>>>> module . >>>>> Static linking will allow the peaceful cohabitation. >>>> I would suggest statically compiling the custom version and using it >>>> however you find necessary or combining >>> It's not actually possible. >> Why not? What is the custom xulrunner application anyway? Given it is >> "custom", any set of "customizations" should be possible? > > The reasons are mostly 'internals'. > The build application procedure is quite complicated, subject of the intense > QA testing, and finally is not easy to change.
... >> Changing the installer is also possible, but it should follow some >> reasonable and consistent style. Just bundling more files does not seem like >> one. >> >> Possible options could be: >> A: current situation >> B: blend between static and dynamic linking inside OpenSC package >> - static PKCS#11 >> - static Minidriver >> - opensc.dll for tools only, in tools folder > > This would be perfect for me. Can this scheme be adopted as a general and > replace the current one ? Seems reasonable. Will see how it affects the size of the installer. I still believe that OpenSC installer should try to follow what is the most optimal solution for the "normal user" of OpenSC and any internal developments adjust to that. Taking the Spanish example, the opposite has caused more problems in the long run than solve them... Best, Martin -- @MartinPaljak.net +3725156495 _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
