Camp, TracyX E wrote: > >> I'm very much in favour of this. One comment, though - if you're going >> to make structure opaque, then why not make them truly opaque by >> removing their definitions from the public headers? > > In LSB they would be truly opaque. LSB works by producing a set of stub > libraries and generated headers that contain the defined interfaces. In > those generated headers, the types would be opaque. These stub libs and > headers however are only used by applications attempting to build with > the LSB environment, the real openssl remains unchanged and is utilized > at runtime. I don't really see changing all of openssl directly as a > reasonable solution however since a vast mountain of software is already > written with those structures defined.
How is that vast amount of software going to work under LSB, then? In any case, ABI stability is not a problem unique to LSB, and I'm not sure why we'd want to solve it for only that project. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.links.org/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
