Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
>
> From: Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ben> Also, why not autobuild in crypto/objects instead of requiring a make
> ben> update? Seems to work fine for me (though it may happen at the wrong
> ben> moment, currently).
>
> I don't recall the exact discussion we had about exactly this (if was
> object.h and obj_dat.h that were the issue back then), but the result
> was having to do a make update when you wanted it updated. Basically,
> obj_mac.h and obj_mac.num are files at the same level as the error
> code files. I dunno about you, but it feels like a pretty natural
> thing to have the object database being updated at make update time.
> Look at it this way: how often do we update the OID list?
What does that matter? How often do we update any particular file? The
point is that if I change it it has to rebuild the files before it takes
effect. Why should I have to know that a "make update" is required to do
this? Seems to me that part of the point of make is to remove the need
to remember how things are built!
> In any case, I'm working on doing this completely differently,
> basically reading OIDs and LDAP schemas straight of RFC's and similar
> files... But you know that already :-).
Yep, though how that works for things that have no OIDs, I don't know!
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
Coming to ApacheCon Europe 2000? http://apachecon.com/
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
