Hello, I will try to correct the "patch" using the developer's branch asap. It may take some time, but is reasonable. Once I modify the code of last version of openssl somebody may test it :), apart from me of course
The reason of this patch is that Pocket PC, Windows Mobile... and also Smart Phones are a subset (or implements a subset) of Windows CE so many standard C/C++ is missing and other things as console are missing also, so openssl does not work for those platforms unless "specific" changes are taken into account when compiling (limited devices). What Farkas Levente submit is absolutely true, while all the development tools of Microsoft are really expensive, embedded visual studio and emulators are free. Perhaps, can be a good idea to have openssl everywhere, including smart phones :) I'll try to submit the new patch as soon as possible, Thanks for the comments, Daniel Díaz > -----Original Message----- > From: Farkas Levente [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: miércoles, 20 de julio de 2005 19:22 > To: openssl-dev@openssl.org > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'amarin' > Subject: Re: [PATCH] OpenSSL for Windows Mobile 2003 > > Andy Polyakov wrote: > >> I send this topic another time adding [PATCH] to the subject > >> (contribution). > > > > > > Well, it's not really "[PATCH]" keyword in the subject that makes > > magical difference, but rather our ability to audit and test the > > submitted code multiplied by degree of common interest for platform in > > question. In other words, *if* either of development team members had > > access to platform in question or similar one *and* there was commonly > > expressed need for CE support, then you would observe better > > round-trips. Just to make sure, "*if*" in previous sentence means that > > none of us has access to Windows CE platform, which is why we're a bit > > reluctant to even *say* something on the matter. We kind of expect other > > Windows CE developers on the list to speak up, make some peer review and > > put a word for submission. > > i'm realy would like to see this patch included in the upstream openssl! > i even volunteer to review the patch or modify to your fit. > about the win ce platform access. all win ce (pocket pc, windows mobile) > development enviroment (eg. eMbedded Visual C++) can be downloaded from > ms for free (which is not usual from ms:-) at the same time you can > download "Emulator Images for Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition > software for Pocket PC" so you can compile with eVC++ on win32 for CE > and you can also test it on win32 with the pocket pc emulator. > > >> 3 OpenSSL 0.9.7f [Not tested with newer versions] > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is actually another > > reason for us to be reluctant. We don't want to add new platforms to > > branch in support-only phase. Note that there is a number of CE-specific > > changes in development as well as just released 0.9.8 version and would > > rather refine newer version than risk support-only/stable version get > > broken. So that if you wish to pursue this, I would really recommend to > > switch to development branch or at least 0.9.8. > > it'sacceptable, although since the api change a bit, it'd be nice to > backport it to the latest 0.9.7 release too. > > > And some comments after just scrolling through... > > > >> -#if ... !defined(OPENSSL_SYS_WINCE) > >> +#if ... !defined(OPENSSL_SYS_WINCE) && !defined(PPC2003) > > > > > > ... and similar in different flavors in a lot of other places. Why not > > define OPENSSL_SYS_WINCE at command line or by some other means instead? > > As far as I understand platform in question *is* Windows CE-based. One > > can argue that we should/could have used pre-defined _WIN32_WCE macro > > instead of own private OPENSSL_SYS_WINCE, but that's the way things are. > > So I'd strongly recommend to find a way to define OPENSSL_SYS_WINCE > > instead of "polluting" the code with own private PPC2003 macro. > > it's a bit more complicated since not all wince is ppc2003, but all > ppc2003 is wince:-) > > > These are the kind of things we [at least I] expect to see/hear/find in > > submissions we can't directly test. A. > > this also means it'd be better to split the patch into smaller patches > and you can accept these patches one-by-one? and we can fix these small > patches more easily. > > -- > Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
