If binaries are seriuously considered "LIBS" are better, giving more
flexibility.
The entire openssl package as a DLL is about a 2MB binary, but typical
programs only use about 50-200k of code.
I'd be hapy to maintain a page with Win32 libs, and an example program with
a DSW/DSP file on our site.... if anyone wants it (just attach an archiver
to the end of my make)
-----Original Message-----
From: Oliver Floericke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, July 15, 1999 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: NASM in Win32 OpenSSL.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Holger Reif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. Juli 1999 08:10
Betreff: Re: NASM in Win32 OpenSSL.
> Peter Gutmann schrieb:
> >
> > Dr Stephen Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >Historically OpenSSL has used the MASM ("ml") assembler for Win32 which
> > >is rather expensive and tricky to obtain: I don't have it for example.
> >
> > Actually you already have it, and it's free (well, free if you have the
Win95
> > DDK, which comes with MSDN, which every Windows developer seems to end
up with
> > by default). Because MASM 6.11 couldn't generate VxD's, MS shipped a
hacked
> > version with the DDK which is buried somewhere n levels deep in a
> > subdirectory. Just run it with the /coff argument and it'll produce
output
> > which works fine for NT.
>
> Since WIN* always seems to be a problematic issue I suggest the
> following:
> 1.) Assume the user isn't a developer. Probably he only needs
> a set of DLLs and an exe file. So can we distribute
> *released* versions as binaries for WIN* (not SNAP versions)
> Perhaps we need to think about which ciphers should be in
> (think of IDEA, RSA, RC* - BTW is there an RSAref for WIN as
> well?)
> This point will for sure make 90% of the people happy
Yep I would be very happy if you would do this because I am really not
interrested in compiling this stuff - I have enough problems with my own
programs :-)
Do deploy a compiled version would be a fine solution - especially for the
tools: I myself use OpenSSLon AIX and want to use the CA.SH stuff for
certificate administration on NT - but i do not have installed any c
compiler and I really do not WANT to do it only to get one program running.
So having one set of DLL's and exe's would be fine
Oliver
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
