From: Bodo Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
moeller> If we rename such macros to OPENSSL_whatever, we can define them
moeller> whenever we feel like it. If they have generic names, we should
moeller> be more careful. I guess MSDOS wouldn't really hurt to much,
moeller> but that's about the limit.
I was pondering some kind of name standard, like OPENSSL_SYS_os, to
denote what platform we're on, and move all those definitions to
e_os2.h. We could then define other macros based on those in the
internal header. Does that sound like a good plan?
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 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]
