On May 24 23:16, Geoff Thorpe wrote: > On May 22, 2005 08:17 am, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > now that I had first contact with engines, I thought it might be > > better to give them some testing. > > Yes, thanks for doing so :-)
Sure. I just can't test if they *really* work since I'm obviously missing the stuff they're trying to connect to. > > However, I found that lib4758_cca.so and libncipher.so don't load, > > because the engine id differs from the engine name. > > > > The engine id of lib4758_cca.so is "4758cca" instead of "4758_cca", > > the id of libncipher.so is "chil" instead of "ncipher". > > Yes, this is unfortunate. I've just committed a fix to the 0.9.8-stable > and HEAD branches that will tolerate both names when binding as a dynamic > engine. It'd still be preferable to change the names of the generated > shared libraries too so that the default name with static and dynamic use > is the same (ie. using 'chil' for a built-in engine and 'ncipher' for an > external engine make much sense). Right now the existing change will just > allow you to dynamically bind using 'ncipher'. Please try out the next > nightly snapshot if you're able. Works. But I agree, it be more correct to be able to load a "chil" and a "4758cca" engine. > Richard, any idea of how safe it would be to change the names of the two > shared librariesy at this stage of the 0.9.8 betas? I'm reluctant to > charge ahead for fear of breaking the strange builds (win32, VMS, > cygwin, ...) WHAT? Cygwin a strange build? How dare you... ;-) Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Project Co-Leader Red Hat, Inc. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
