In message <56c27dc0.3030...@oracle.com> on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 01:39:12 +,
Jeremy Farrell said:
jeremy.farrell> Thanks Richard - it was just a thought, and clearly not a very
helpful
jeremy.farrell> one. The rest of the proposal looks like a good improvement to
me.
Quite all right. It answ
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 said:
levitte> In message <56c210e7.5080...@oracle.com> on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:54:47 +,
Jeremy Farrell said:
levitte>
In message <20160215.185953.117619649162395329.levi...@openssl.org> on Mon, 15
Feb 2016 18:59:53 +0100 (CET), Richard Levitte said:
levitte> In message <56c210e7.5080...@oracle.com> on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:54:47
+, Jeremy Farrell said:
levitte>
levitte> jeremy.farrell> It sounds good, exce
In message <56c210e7.5080...@oracle.com> on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:54:47 +,
Jeremy Farrell said:
jeremy.farrell>
jeremy.farrell>
jeremy.farrell> On 15/02/2016 12:29, Richard Levitte wrote:
jeremy.farrell> > In message <20160215122509.ga15...@calimero.vinschen.de> on
Mon, 15
jeremy.farrell> >
On 15/02/2016 12:29, Richard Levitte wrote:
In message <20160215122509.ga15...@calimero.vinschen.de> on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:25:09
+0100, Corinna Vinschen said:
vinschen> On Feb 15 13:03, Richard Levitte wrote:
vinschen> > So here is what I'm thinking...
vinschen> >
vinschen> > - engines in 1
In message <20160215122509.ga15...@calimero.vinschen.de> on Mon, 15 Feb 2016
13:25:09 +0100, Corinna Vinschen said:
vinschen> On Feb 15 13:03, Richard Levitte wrote:
vinschen> > So here is what I'm thinking...
vinschen> >
vinschen> > - engines in 1.1 should be named FOO.{suffix} (for an engine
On Feb 15 13:03, Richard Levitte wrote:
> So here is what I'm thinking...
>
> - engines in 1.1 should be named FOO.{suffix} (for an engine FOO and
> whatever suffix is conventional on the platform at hand, be it .so,
> .dll, .sl, .dylib...)
> - the OpenSSL DSO module should be changed to have
In message <20160215113936.ga9...@calimero.vinschen.de> on Mon, 15 Feb 2016
12:39:36 +0100, Corinna Vinschen said:
vinschen> On Feb 15 12:11, Richard Levitte wrote:
vinschen> > Hi Corinna,
vinschen> >
vinschen> > In message <20160215105045.ga7...@calimero.vinschen.de> on Mon, 15
Feb 2016 11:50
On Feb 15 12:11, Richard Levitte wrote:
> Hi Corinna,
>
> In message <20160215105045.ga7...@calimero.vinschen.de> on Mon, 15 Feb 2016
> 11:50:45 +0100, Corinna Vinschen said:
>
> vinschen> > Cygwin: cygcapi.dll
> vinschen>
> vinschen> I can't speak for Mingw, but on Cygwin the modules are ca
Hi Corinna,
In message <20160215105045.ga7...@calimero.vinschen.de> on Mon, 15 Feb 2016
11:50:45 +0100, Corinna Vinschen said:
vinschen> > Cygwin: cygcapi.dll
vinschen>
vinschen> I can't speak for Mingw, but on Cygwin the modules are called
libFOO.so,
vinschen> e.g.
vinschen>
vinschen> /
Hi Richard,
On Feb 15 01:11, Richard Levitte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got a question to the Cygwin / Mingw community, regarding the
> naming of dynamic engines.
>
> >From looking at Makefile.shared et al, the engines get the same kind
> of prefixes as a standard shared library (but without the acco
Possibly the best fix is to simply not specify the library prefix or suffix.i.e. -engine capiAnd let OS/build specific code sort out the rest. You still have .so and .sl on different variants of HP/UX for example.Next best, specify the complete library name in all cases - and I'll concede, best an
Hi,
I've got a question to the Cygwin / Mingw community, regarding the
naming of dynamic engines.
>From looking at Makefile.shared et al, the engines get the same kind
of prefixes as a standard shared library (but without the accompanying
import library, of course). So the capi engine gets named
13 matches
Mail list logo
