> >ulf> Is it really necessary to have 320k + 50k files in a printable
> >ulf> encoding in the Mac directory??
As Roy pointed out, none-source code MacOS files have (let's call it) a
fork structure and therefore *has to* be encoded in either case. There
is a binary format, but then the files will be 280k+42k (or something)
at the cost that people might and probably will get into a trouble
unpacking 'em whenever some program (e.g. cvs for mac:-) gets wrong idea
and applies \n to \r or even worse iso-8859-x to macos encoding
conversion. The printable format (.hqx) is in turn resistant to that
kind of screw-ups, it occupies as much space in gzipped distribution as
the binary format and some programs (e.g. SUNtar for MacOS) handle 'em
transparently. Yes, one can pack-n-compress those two files together,
then binhex the archive and get down to about 100k, but it won't save
you space in the final .tar.gz distribution and will only add a level of
complexity to the unpacking procedure. Well, I suppose nobody gives a
damn about the latter anyway, huh:-)
But back to the question. Is it *really* necessary? The files are (as
Roy already inexplicitely mentioned) Metrowerk's alternative to
Makefiles and an applescript creating (equivalent to) symbolic links in
./include/openssl. I reckon it's as necessary as to have the MacOS
catalog. As alternative we can detach the whole catalog from the cvs and
put it on the web, say at http://www.openssl.org/related/MacOS or
something, and simply offer people to download the MacOS-specific stuff
separately. Shall we take a vote?
Cheers. Andy.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
