Richard, I found that the no-hw option didn't work. After discussing it on the list I agreed to contribute a no-engine option. I understand that no-engine doesn't imply the same thing as no-hw, but it still seems like a good option to have. Until the software crypto gets moved into an engine this option allows building of an OpenSSL "classic" which is useful when footprint is important, such as when ported to PDA's (and maybe even the next generation of mobile phones). The Windows CE port that I've been working on would require a lot more "#ifndef ...CE"'s to be inserted into the code if no-engine isn't supported. Perhaps these are due to no-hw not being implemented fully. With seemingly silly configuration options like no-evp, no-bio, no-stack being supported, I don't think no-engine is such a bad idea. Perhaps in the future it will not be useful, but for now I need it for my port.
Steven -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Richard Levitte via RT Sent: Friday, 4 October 2002 10:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [openssl.org #287] [PATCH] no-engine (openssl-0.9.7-stable-SNAP-20020915) I have to ask: why do you feel the need to remove the ENGINE framework? I can understand that you might not want to have any built-in engines (the option 'no-hw' to Configure should help. If not, I'm happy to apply a corrective patch). I'd like a good explanation before I consider applying this patch, especially since the ENGINE platform may become a very integral part of OpenSSL. -- Richard Levitte ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
