In message <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 May 2009 19:32:59 -0500 (CDT), [email protected] (Steven M. Schweda) said:
sms> From: Richard Levitte <[email protected]> sms> sms> > sms> My approach on projects like this has been to create a sms> > sms> distinct set of MMS description files (and command procedures) sms> > sms> for VMS, because the VMS environment is so different from a sms> > sms> UNIX-like environment. sms> > sms> > Still, the modules can be extracted from the Unixly Makefiles. sms> sms> Perhaps. Actually, not "perhaps". The Windows build environment is generated exactly in that manner, so there's a precedent. sms> > After a while, it is a pain in the nether regions to have to sms> > manually update the module list. I've been (loosely lately, sms> > I'll admit that) been at it for a few years now... sms> sms> That'd depend on how much changes how fast. It also depends on how attentive you are with what happens with the source. sms> > I apologise, again, for having had you wait for even a confirmation sms> > that your patches were received. sms> sms> That's fine, but I'd be more encouraged if anyone said that sms> he'd actually tried the stuff, and found an actual problem with sms> it. (There is certainly no shortage of problems with the sms> released code.) I've tried the functional parts, I've committed them to the current source, the changes I've commited are in the current snapshots. I'm also making nightly builds that are currently failing, but I'm slowly getting at it. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte [email protected] http://richard.levitte.org/ "Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!" -- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
