In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:33:59 -0500,
Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
geoff> Erm, I think there's a fundemantal problem with this. I understand the
geoff> desire to build a version of openssl such that it doesn't include the
geoff> engine footprint, nor its execution overheads. I could possibly accept
geoff> that binary incompatibilities could be accepted between applications
geoff> and/or libraries on the basis that you'd only bother doing this stuff if
geoff> you were *determined* to have ENGINE surgically removed. Ie. we already
geoff> state that for binary compatibility, 0.9.x !~ 0.9.(x+1), however we
geoff> could perhaps also tolerate the situation where for a fixed 'x',
geoff> 0.9.x-engine !~ 0.9.x-noengine.
>From a functional point of view, this is not different from, for
example, specifying no-rsa.
geoff> What I can't accept is that the precompiler symbol used to *build* a
geoff> non-engine version of openssl is used in the exported header files in a
geoff> way that alters the definitions of API structures. Ie. if you build a
[...]
Very good point. However:
geoff> IMHO the better way to have handled this would have been to opaquely
geoff> define the ENGINE type in crypto.h (this could also reduce some header
geoff> dependencies on engine.h BTW) so that all the existing structures can
No need, there's a very practical line in ossl_typ.h :-).
Working on the problem. Thanks for noticing it.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannv�gen 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]
