On 2/3/08, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Testing the proposed opensc from
> http://alon.barlev.googlepages.com/opensc-0.11.4-svn.tar.gz
>
> Configure works on ML-5 (StartCom MultiMedia) with ./configure
> --enable-openct --enable-pcsc-lite --enable-nsplugin, however PCS
Testing the proposed opensc from
http://alon.barlev.googlepages.com/opensc-0.11.4-svn.tar.gz
Configure works on ML-5 (StartCom MultiMedia) with ./configure
--enable-openct --enable-pcsc-lite --enable-nsplugin, however PCSC isn't
picked up:
OpenSSL support: yes
PC/SC support:
Done.
Thanks.
On 2/2/08, Martin Paljak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2008, at 8:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Added internal-winscard with minimum contents.
> >branches/alonbl/mingw/src/libopensc/part10.h
> >
>
> You could merge part10.h into the internal header as well. It is t
On 2/1/08, Alon Bar-Lev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Windows binaries are available at [1], source tarball is available at [2].
As far as I know this should work. I need people to test this.
Updated binaries and source are available for testing, include totally
dynamic pcsc support, and resource s
On Feb 2, 2008, at 8:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Added internal-winscard with minimum contents.
>branches/alonbl/mingw/src/libopensc/part10.h
>
You could merge part10.h into the internal header as well. It is there
only because windows PCSC doesn't have the reader.h header that
conta
On 2/2/08, Alon Bar-Lev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only active system I know where pcsc-lite has less arguments is on
> > Mac OS X Tiger currently. On Linux I believe most up to date
> > distributions ship with a newer pcsc-lite. There are some but very-
> > very seldom e-mails to lists or
On 2/1/08, Alon Bar-Lev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5. No version and other resources for DLLs and EXEs, it may be added
> in future if important.
Finished with this one.
The only noticeable change is the lack of manifests as mingw does not
support these.
Alon.
__
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 12:42:47PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> I still don't understand why building a working release using MinGW
> is a bad idea...
I think this possibility would be very good.
//Peter
___
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devel@lists
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
This is not true at all...
Of course it's true...you confirm it below...
If you want to get IBM, HP or Sun certification, you must not use gcc
on these platforms but use their own proprietary compilers. Exactly as
the Microsoft case.
Yes, except that we don't want to
On 2/2/08, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Now I get why I don't receive your mails correctly.. You are using HTML
>> mail...
>
> Well, yes, TB has that "feature" ;-)
> ...what's wrong with that?
Will I keep getting your quotes incorrect, and some other parts are corrupt.
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On 2/2/08, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now I get why I don't receive your mails correctly.. You are using HTML mail...
Well, yes, TB has that "feature" ;-)
...what's wrong with that?
(BTW, Sun, AIX and others do have the gcc compiler so I don't
On 2/2/08, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However if there are enough builders and developers for the MS platform and
> it works better with MS compiler etc. then why not? But if nobody maintains
> the code within reasonable time, I prefer to rely on MinGW or other OSS
> to
On 2/2/08, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now I get why I don't receive your mails correctly.. You are using HTML mail...
Thanks for the info.
> (BTW, Sun, AIX and others do have the gcc compiler so I don't see a problem
> here, except that one can build it on Linux)
MinG
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
I still don't understand why building a working release using MinGW is
a bad idea...
I hope other people can assists in their view.
Generally I support your view, but being also a pragmatist most of the
times, I go with what works best too. Apparently /many/some/ of us /will
On 2/2/08, Martin Paljak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>
> > On 2/2/08, Martin Paljak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Yes. I don't want to do this on compile time, but on Runtime, there
> > m
On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> It also reduces the chances for incompatibilities, as now when you add
> a patch, you have no way to know that you broke the Microsoft port...
This should be fixed with buildbot or some other autobuild
infrastructure.
I don't know for sure yet
On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On 2/2/08, Martin Paljak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Yes. I don't want to do this on compile time, but on Runtime, there
> must be
> some way to get version or some other feedback to disti
On 2/2/08, Martin Paljak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi.
> On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Ludovic, I need some help in reader-pcsc:
>
> > 1. How can I detect if SCardControl is old or new? I am sure I can do
> > this by detecting some other fact.
>
> Do you mean the number of
On 2/2/08, Martin Paljak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:11 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Using Manifests requires to be more dependent on Microsoft
> > technologies. Also it has nothing to do with security. A simpler
> > solution would be to create a new DLL name for each release.
On 2/2/08, Martin Paljak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure that OpenSC and the primary interface (PKCS#11) is
> actually executed with system privileges
> unless you use it in tandem of some system-privileges software (like
> CSP11 for example)
CSP also is loaded into the context of an app
On 2/2/08, Martin Paljak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I think about it now, a system_xyz.c file (much like pcsc-lite)
> with direct wrappers for win32 api would be a better choice than
> 'require libtool on windows'.
I think so too...
Thanks!
___
op
21 matches
Mail list logo
