Richard Levitte via RT wrote: > Hey Andrew, > > Actually, OpenSSL hasn't really been possible to build in > non-monolith mode, as far as I know. Honestly, I don't think > we should go the non-monolith path eaither, if you consider commands > like "passwd"... > > If you tell me why you want to go non-monolith, I might change my > mind. No promises, though...
Hey Richard - Long time no talk, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you - on vacation. My concern, I guess, is not necessarily to be able to build standalone executables from the default config-->Makefile, but to be able to target individual executables in apps if necessary - usually ca and req, and also leverage the apps.c/.h functionality for new or custom executables. I guess architecturally, wouldn't it be better to keep functionality shared between different portions of the openssl commands separate from the individual application files. As opposed to do_subject(..), for example, residing in ca.c and being used additionally in req.c, shouldn't it be located within apps.c, where the rest of the utility and shared functions are kept? Its really no big deal for me - as I only have one instance of "nonmonolith" functionality that I have keep my eye on for one of our customers. I only discover all the nonmonolithic idiosyncracies when I get to putting the Developer Studio workspaces together, where I have segmented out all the individual executables to go along with openssl.exe, where I am relying upon the lack of the "MONOLITH" flag Regards, Andrew (Hope its cooler there in Sweden, than it is here in the states :-) ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
