> >I'm very much in favour of this. One comment, though - if you're going >to make structure opaque, then why not make them truly opaque by >removing their definitions from the public headers?
In LSB they would be truly opaque. LSB works by producing a set of stub libraries and generated headers that contain the defined interfaces. In those generated headers, the types would be opaque. These stub libs and headers however are only used by applications attempting to build with the LSB environment, the real openssl remains unchanged and is utilized at runtime. I don't really see changing all of openssl directly as a reasonable solution however since a vast mountain of software is already written with those structures defined. Tracy Camp > > >-- >http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.links.org/ > >"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he >doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff >______________________________________________________________________ >OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org >Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org >Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]