In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:33:59 -0500, Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
geoff> Erm, I think there's a fundemantal problem with this. I understand the geoff> desire to build a version of openssl such that it doesn't include the geoff> engine footprint, nor its execution overheads. I could possibly accept geoff> that binary incompatibilities could be accepted between applications geoff> and/or libraries on the basis that you'd only bother doing this stuff if geoff> you were *determined* to have ENGINE surgically removed. Ie. we already geoff> state that for binary compatibility, 0.9.x !~ 0.9.(x+1), however we geoff> could perhaps also tolerate the situation where for a fixed 'x', geoff> 0.9.x-engine !~ 0.9.x-noengine. >From a functional point of view, this is not different from, for example, specifying no-rsa. geoff> What I can't accept is that the precompiler symbol used to *build* a geoff> non-engine version of openssl is used in the exported header files in a geoff> way that alters the definitions of API structures. Ie. if you build a [...] Very good point. However: geoff> IMHO the better way to have handled this would have been to opaquely geoff> define the ENGINE type in crypto.h (this could also reduce some header geoff> dependencies on engine.h BTW) so that all the existing structures can No need, there's a very practical line in ossl_typ.h :-). Working on the problem. Thanks for noticing it. -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]