Ben Laurie wrote:
Camp, TracyX E wrote:
I really didn't hear much back on this topic, but what I did hear seemed
to support the approach I have been taking thus far. Please see my
previous message in this thread for the details.
So in hopes of moving this topic along in a practical sense, I have
attached two patches that implement all the macro to function conversion
that I believe would be necessary to support OpenSSL ABI stability from
an LSB perspective going forward by allowing applications to always
treat OpenSSL data structures as opaque types.
One patch is against the released OpenSSL 0.9.8d and another is against
the development snapshot from October 16th.
As far as I can tell, these conversions should not present any sort of
noticeable performance impact since they are almost all related to
protocol setup in some manner. I also believe the changes should not
impact binary compatibility with applications that where build using the
macro versions of these routines. Where possible I've also attempted to
preserve the coding style in use.
To get OpenSSL into the LSB either a different approach would need to be
proposed, or some form of the attached patches would need to make it
into an OpenSSL release, followed by a significant number of Linux
distributions picking up that release or later. There is an upcoming
early next-year LSB 3.2 release that potentially could be the release
vehicle for OpenSSL in LSB.
Comments, etc. welcomed.
I'm very much in favour of this.
so am I
Cheers,
Nils
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
