In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Paul Sutton wrote:
>>
>> The binary that "OpenSSL" installs is still called "ssleay". Shouldn't it
>> be renamed "openssl"?
>>
>> Also what do people think of the links that are made by default so that
>> "s_client", "x509" etc can be run as separate programs rather than via
>> "ssleay x509" etc? I've never liked or used them, but do others think that
>> they are useful?
> I've never even noticed them, so I'm quite happy to lose them! However,
> isn't that likely to break things for users? On that note, will we also
> provide a link called "ssleay" for back compatibility?
I personally think the backward compatiblity issue is not such dramatically
here. Because our package already uses the different "OpenSSL" package name,
so name changes at other edges are just obvious to the users. Actually now
with OpenSSL 0.9.x it's the time for such changes, because after OpenSSL 1.x
the interfaces should be fixed. Then for such a change we would need the
backward compat symlink "ssleay", but at this change our major goal should be
cleanups and not 100% SSLeay compatibilty.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
