On 15/02/2016 23:16, Richard Levitte wrote:
In message <20160215.185953.117619649162395329.levi...@openssl.org> on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:59:53 +0100 (CET), Richard Levitte <levi...@openssl.org> said:levitte> In message <56c210e7.5080...@oracle.com> on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:54:47 +0000, Jeremy Farrell <jeremy.farr...@oracle.com> said: levitte> levitte> jeremy.farrell> It sounds good, except shouldn't it be "capi.so" for levitte> jeremy.farrell> cygwin, like the other mainstream POSIXy levitte> jeremy.farrell> implementations? The point of cygwin is that it's levitte> jeremy.farrell> POSIX not Windows, and it generally follows common levitte> jeremy.farrell> practices of POSIXy OSes for things which aren't levitte> jeremy.farrell> specified by POSIX. It seems that it would be simpler levitte> jeremy.farrell> all round (for users as well as development) to treat levitte> jeremy.farrell> it the same as "normal" UNIX-like OSes except when it levitte> jeremy.farrell> absolutely has to be treated differently. levitte> levitte> In practice, it really doesn't matter, it all comes down what the DSO levitte> module supports, and the way I'm coding this, Configure will decide. levitte> So it's a preference and nothing else. Me, I don't particularly care, levitte> but if it disturbs the Cygwin community to see one .dll too many, I'm levitte> ready to make the necessary changes (it's literally one line of code levitte> to change). I had myself a look around in my little installation, and tried these two commands: find /usr/lib -name '*.so' find /usr/lib -name '*.dll' The first one didn't even return a screenfull (in my 25 line terminal screen), and the overwhelming majority was OpenSSL 1.0.2 engines ;-) The second one, on the other hand, gave a *lot* more output. All aspell, babl, gawk, gegl, perl(!) loadable modules are named with the FOO.dll naming convention (there are a few packages, a minority, that have named them cygFOO.dll)... and the list goes on. So looking at how things seem to be done normally, I feel confident that FOO.dll is a sane choice, even though not strictly POSIX in its file name extension. And like I said, it matters very little for any user, the goal is to allow this kind of command line: openssl s_server -engine FOO No extension, just a name for the user to worry about.
Thanks Richard - it was just a thought, and clearly not a very helpful one. The rest of the proposal looks like a good improvement to me.
-- J. J. Farrell - not speaking for Oracle
-- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
