On Jan 23 19:11, Salz, Rich wrote: > Looking at just OPENSSL_NO_xxx, we have over 100 openssl #ifdef options and > we are considering removing nearly a third of them. Please reply soon if the > following plan would cause problems. This will happen only in master, for > post-1.0.2. > We will remove the following options. You could argue that the > OPENSSL_NO_SHAxxx options be treated as crypto, but OpenSSL does not compile > without SHA and SHA1 defined, and we have no interest in spending the time to > fix it. So for consistency, we will remove all of them. > GENUINE_DSA (and the broken DSS0 since SHA0 will be removed) > OPENSSL_NO_BIO > OPENSSL_NO_BUFFER > OPENSSL_NO_BUF_FREELISTS > OPENSSL_NO_CHAIN_VERIFY > OPENSSL_NO_DESCBCM (also removing the code; no EVP support) > OPENSSL_NO_EVP > OPENSSL_NO_FIPS_ERR > OPENSSL_NO_HASH_COMP > OPENSSL_NO_LHASH > OPENSSL_NO_LOCKING > OPENSSL_NO_MULTIBYTE (also removing the code) > OPENSSL_NO_OBJECT > OPENSSL_NO_RFC3779 > OPENSSL_NO_SHA > OPENSSL_NO_SHA0 (also removing the code for SHA0) > OPENSSL_NO_SHA1 > OPENSSL_NO_SHA224 > OPENSSL_NO_SHA256 > OPENSSL_NO_SHA384 > OPENSSL_NO_SHA512 > OPENSSL_NO_SPEED > OPENSSL_NO_SSL_INTERN (first attempt at making things opaque) > OPENSSL_NO_STACK > OPENSSL_NO_STORE > OPENSSL_NO_TLS > OPENSSL_NO_TLS1 > OPENSSL_NO_TLS1_2_CLIENT > OPENSSL_NO_TLSEXT > OPENSSL_NO_X509 > OPENSSL_NO_X509_VERIFY
For those of the flags controlling OS capabilities, it would be nice to have a brief description so the OS-specific maintainers can check removing some of them might be a problem. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer Red Hat
pgpLgIuMEXccY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
