Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William M. Perry) wrote:
> > We also use libtool to build all of our stuff as shared libraries when
> > possible.
>
> You're not the first to suggest libtool. Wasn't there some license
> conflict with it that meant we couldn't use it?
There was a time where libltdl (a dynamic loading abstraction to cover
dlopen vs shl_load vs LoadModule vs BeOS loading, etc) was covered under
the GPL instead of the LGPL. But OpenSSL wouldn't use that anyway, so
there shouldn't be any problem.
> > So my question is: would people be willing to throw out all the Configure
> > and halfway autoconf support if I blew a few hours over the next couple of
> > days to completely rework it? This would buy us shared library support as
> > well, which I notice was on the todo list in the status reports.
>
> We're constantly fighting problems where a particular version of a
> compiler or OS doesn't work quite right, or config generalizes too much
> and picks a non-working configuration. If you could come up with
> something that was easy to maintain and made it easy to add tests for
> special cases, that'd be a big help.
I'll see what I can do towards the end of the week. The biggest pain in
the %!@%%! will be configuring any of the definitions of MD2_CHAR/MD2_LONG
stuff. That doesn't seem like something that you can detect in autoconf.
There will still be quite a bit of hardwired stuff, but it will still be
better than it is now (I hope).
-Bill P.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
