> I bet you meant
> ($ssl,$crypto,$ocsp)=("ssl","crypto","ocsp");
> -- your patch to util/pl/VC-32.pl (with $cosp = "ocsp32") fixes it
> for that specific case (can VC-16.pl be ignored now?).
Yes, I did. Plus you explained why I didn't catch it. Thanks.
> But does anyone ever use makefile.one for Unix platforms, or at least
> test it? util/pl/ contains BC-16.pl, BC-32.pl, VC-16.pl, VC-32.pl,
> linux.pl, ultrix.pl, unix.pl. The top Makefile{.org,ssl} calls
> mk1mf.pl without any argument, and INSTALL.W32 plus do_ms.bat use only
> VC-* (BC-* is not even finished according to INSTALL.W32). There's a
> script util/FreeBSD.sh which calls mk1mf.pl FreeBSD (which in turn
> uses util/pl/unix.pl) -- is this ever used? I'm not too happy with
> having so much stuff buried in various perl scripts ...
I can't say I find this stuff that easy to understand myself--or to
patch, obviously.. :) A uniform build infrastructure would certainly
help make us all good citizens with respect to each other's operating
system preferences.
> Also, ms/do_ms.bat has a semi-doppleganger util/do_ms.sh with different
> lines commented out (and the additional difference that do_ms.bat uses
> no-asm for 32 bit cases while do_ms.sh doesn't).
Sounds like another case of the spreading bat files, Robin! Can they be
added to the soon-to-be-obsolete list?
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
