On Thu, Feb 22, 2001, Lenny Foner wrote:
> If this is no longer the case, and it is asserted by someone(s) with
> control of the source that a working (by whatever metric) set of
> patches that implements the use of autoconf/automake would not be a
> waste of time to submit, -then- I expect we'll see some action on
> this.
Working means that it won't break existing functionality, including
Win32 and VMS support, and that it will replace (or show a clear path
towards replacing) the current perl-based configuration system on
Unix-style systems.
If you write that, it will get committed.
I don't think that automake supports the sub-library structure used in
OpenSSL. If the .a file ends up bloated to several MB or if modifying
code in a sub-library causes a compiler/linker run that lasts several
minutes, I would consider that broken. But again, if we get working
patches, we'll use them. I don't think anybody is particularly proud
of the current build system.
> way--whether US contributions are disallowed or allowed---it should
> be documented on the website and in the README.)
It is already is there:
Note: For legal reasons, contributions from the US can be accepted only
if a copy of the patch is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> o Question Misc.5 of the FAQ still maintains that autoconf/automake
> won't be used for OpenSSL.
That it isn't, not that it won't. Anyway, I changed that answer.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
