On 28 June 2012 14:06, Marc Hoersken <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > 2012/6/28 Yang Tse <[email protected]>: >> Yes, yes. I'm certainly in favour of that. Although I want explicit >> approval on this thread from Marc Hoersken in order to interpret his >> proposal in this way, given that his proposal would be affected by >> this. > > Of course I would like the proposed literals to fit into the > corresponding configuration scheme. --with-SCHANNEL or > --with-WINDOWS-SSL really doesn't make any sense. > > For my proposal this would mean, as you proposed: > > [Config_Literal="SCHANNEL"] > configure: --with-schannel > other: WITH_SCHANNEL or ENABLE_SCHANNEL > > [Config_Literal="WINDOWS_SSL"] > configure: --with-windows-ssl or --with-winssl (short form, > corresponding to other parameters) > other: WITH_WINDOWS_SSL or ENABLE_WINDOWS_SSL
I'm not sure the short form is necessary. There's no --with-ossl or with-gtls etc., but I wouldn't veto it (even if I could :) > We have to apply common sense and the logical restrictions applied by > the environment. > > Best regards, > Marc -- Michael Wood <[email protected]> ------------------------------------------------------------------- List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library Etiquette: http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
