At 03:12 PM 5/27/2003, Geoff Thorpe wrote: >> >But the better solution is to re-arrange the configuration >> >order so the dependencies are already satisfied. >> >> No doubt, a project for another day (at least for my crazy schedule.) > >It's possiby a trivial change, and equally possibly a nightmare. BTW: Does >this problem crop up with any other modules? Ie. do other modules have >linker dependencies that are satisfied implicitly by apr? If so, they >must surely face similar issues if they attempt to do any autoconf checks >during configuration (and in which case, the issue of re-ordering the >configuration system would solve a class of problems greater than just >those of modssl).
Hmmm... there are relatively few opportunities - things like db support in apr-util, zlib support in mod_deflate, etc. >Actually continuing on that line of thinking, there's an orthogonal >cleanup I could suggest, but one that might make later rearrangements >less confusing; is it worth moving the SSL-specific M4 code out of the >top-level and into modules/ssl/config.m4? This seems to be one of the >ways in which the ssl module is (perhaps needlessly) unique in the way it >is wired up to the rest of the tree. Just junk-food for thought. Well, that's one way. But it breaks our ability to wire up ab.c at the same time - my next set of effort was to activate ab.c in the 'correct' pattern we used for mod_ssl. >Of course, laziness/carelessness played its part too, as >you've observed. <gulp> If it's any consolation, I am now more painfully >aware of SSL-C implications than I would have ever chosen to be. :-) This is another gleaming example of why two branch development has become effective for this project :-) No users were hurt in this progressive and cooperative development effort. Shoot down the bugs first, then review the unintended consequences later. >I'll (mostly) hold my tongue - all I'll let slip is that I wrote >ENGINE_init() and can imagine ways in which it could one-day be NOP'd out >of existence. Now you have a reason not to :-) As long as we have parallel 0.9.7 and optional with 0.9.6 support for ENGINE, this will remain a pita. By the way, our result handling from the ENGINE_by_id() is bogus and disallows actually enabling any specific engine. I'm working on it once I've got all the build magic finished - but if you beat me to it tonight I owe you a couple of beers at the next AC event or wherever we next meet up :-) >Of course, even if those possibilities did eventuate to be >the "Right Way" forward for openssl, my current schedule puts them easily >out of the reckoning for this decade at least... Amen to that, brother :-) Bill
