In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 26 Dec 2002 23:31:38 +0100, Andy
Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
appro> Yet I'd dare:-) If it was up to me and if Tim is with us [i.e. is ready
appro> to swiftly verify a snapshot on explicit request], I'd pull it [unified
appro> *586-elf.o rules] even now:-) I have Linux and Solaris/Intel,
appro> login.openssl.org is a FreeBSD machine... So shall we?
I suggest not. Can you say that you cover for all possible variants
of Linux? All variants of FreeBSD? What about OpenBSD? What about
NetBSD?
I know that the *probability* is that it will work fine everywhere.
Unfortunately, when I've tried probability, I've been bitten a few
times. I'd therefore rather play it safe. Remember that the plan is
to release in the next few days. Do you want to take responsability
for the support requests because whatever you do doesn't work on
platform FOO with compiler BAR and linker BAZ?
appro> > In the mean time, does the current solution work on UnixWare/SCO or
appro> > doesn't it?
appro>
appro> Define "current solution" and define "work."
current solution: what is provided with OpenSSL 0.9.7 beta7-dev and
gets configured by default.
works: goes through compilation with no errors or warnings, goes
through tests with no errors (except for expired certificates in some
of the tests), installs correctly, and performs correctly with
applications compiled against it. All this, of course, as far as
we're able to test (which often makes the part about correctly working
applications tricky, and therefore usually just an option, since we
haven't even defined what software we expect to run properly).
So if that means that currently there are some configuration targets
that do not provide any assembler modules and therefore use C code
only, and works properly with the definition above, that's perfectly
fine. In my opinion, "works" comes before "performs faster" (which is
the expectation with the assembler modules :-)).
appro> As far as I can tell the only target that shouldn't work in
appro> 0.9.7-beta6 is sco5-gcc and only if you don't have GNU
appro> assembler around. The rest of targets should work. They lack
appro> assembler support, but they're operational. What is being
appro> discussed here is *proposed* patch adding support for assembler
appro> modules to the targets in question.
OK, now I have a better picture. For some reason, I didn't see the
beginning of this thread. If sco5-gcc currently doesn't use any
assembler and "works" with such a configuration, I'd also leave it be
until 0.9.7a.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
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]
