[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Oct 4 15:32:21 2002]:
> I found that the no-hw option didn't work. Hmm, I probably need to reread that thread. Could you tell me approximately when it was discussed? > 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). OK, I can accept footprint as an argument. > With seemingly silly configuration options like no-evp, no-bio, > no-stack being supported, I entirely agree that those are silly. I've some plans for the future to do a major review of those options. Besides, "supported" is a matter of definition. Just the fact that you can actually give them to the Configure script doesn't really mean they're supported. Just try giving 'no-stack' and you'll probably see the build of OpenSSL fall flat and never recover (until you've caught your senses and reconfigured :-)). -- Richard Levitte ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
