On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> From: Tim Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> tim> It would be much eaiser to test and provide portability patches if
> tim> openssl built outside of the source tree.
>
> You can, if you play a little bit with soft links:
>
> mkdir ../ossl-obj; cd ossl-obj
> find ../openssl-0.9.6-beta2 -type f -print | \
> while read f; do
> nf=`echo $f | sed -e 's/^\.\.\/openssl-0.9.6-beta2\///'`
> mkdir -p `dirname $nf`
> ln -s $f $nf
> done
I'll give this a try
>
> N.B.: I have made no test on the above, it's just to give you an idea
> of what you can do.
>
> tim> I was able to build openssl-0.9.5a on
>
> You mean 0.9.6-beta2, I presume?
No I haven't gotten to the 0.9.6-beta2 yet.
>
> tim> UnixWare 2.03
> tim> UnixWare 2.1.3
> tim> UnixWare 7.1.0
> tim> Solaris 7
> tim> SCO Open Server 5 (5.0.4)
> tim> SCO Open Server 3 (3.2v4.2)
> tim> Caldera eDesktop 2.4
> tim> Red Hat 6.2
> tim>
> tim> But I did have top make changes to the source code to make it work on some
> tim> of the platforms. It's a major pain to have to change the source in 8
> tim> different source trees to test all the changes before providing a patch.
>
> Do you intend to send us a patch, or at least tell us what you had to
> change? And perhaps on which platforms it worked out-of-the-box and
> on which ones you actually had to make changes?
If the symbolic link idea works out I will send a patch.
>
> tim> What are the chances of fixing it to build outside of the source tree?
>
> At this point, slim. To close to release to do that. But you could
> try the softlink idea... For 0.9.7, perhaps. It all depends a lot on
> what the different make implementations can really do.
>
>
--
Tim Rice Multitalents (707) 887-1469
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
