Am Montag 02 November 2009 18:25:55 schrieb Martin Paljak: > On 02.11.2009, at 19:08, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: > > yes and no. ctapi is always compiled in, so we should allow that > > case. but we can still have a big fat warning if neither openct > > nor pcsc is compiled in. > > Yes, but *why*? I don't see a good reason for this other than pure > legacy. CT-API requires manual configuration in the form of a module > definition, much like current PC/SC implementation (if there was not a > single, predictable default). > CT-API should as well be made optional. Especially because it is not > used that much.
making ct-api optional: * is work. who wants to do it? * not a big improvement - so far it causes no problems. * creates work for distributions - they most likely want it enabled, and we need to be sure they know to change their spec/rules to add "--enable-ct-api". so making it optional is a nice thing from a purity point of view. but is it also a real world improvement? I mostly see drawbacks. our problem was many options confused the users. this would create even more options. Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
