Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on Win32

[Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker]

From: Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

jaltman> I would prefer that things be left as they are rather than
jaltman> have the libraries output data to stdout/stderr OR call
jaltman> abort().  Libraries should not call abort() unless things get
jaltman> really desperate.

Let's see, I assume you're talking about "for all times, at least
until version 1.0", do I get you right?  Unfortunately, that's not
very compatible with our effort to purge something that was named "a
mistake"...  The thing I proposed was a compromise to have the user be
conscious of what will happen.

Oh well, I'll keep silent about this 'til somone else in the team says
something...

jaltman> The problem with using static libs is that 0.8MB of code must get
jaltman> linked into each component of the system.  That wastes a lot more
jaltman> space than the stub routines.  Perhaps generation (or usage) of the
jaltman> stub routines could be a compile time option.

And the problem with using DLLs from a product that is version 0.x and
where a *lot* of work is done (and more backward compatibility is
probably going to break) is exactly what you got.

(among the things that have been thought of and that will break a lot
of application is straightening up reference counting of structures.
Right now, that part is less than half-baked, to be honest)

jaltman> What my code does is call RAND_status() to determine whether
jaltman> or not random data needs to be computed.  Does RAND_status()
jaltman> no longer simply provide a test, but instead performs entropy
jaltman> gathering?

Not "instead".  "Additionally".  And it has done so for a long time
(it does in 0.9.5a, but we didn't have the new RAND_poll() in place
then).

-- 
Richard Levitte   \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chairman@Stacken   \ S-168 35  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
Redakteur@Stacken   \      SWEDEN       \ or +46-709-50 36 10
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis                -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Software Engineer, Celo Communications: http://www.celocom.com/

Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]