Hello, > Copied files? What's copied? In makevms.com ALL target will do a SOFTLINKS by the way, that will do a lot of coping around. I agree that with the right /INCLUDE parameter it would be more appropriate to build. I'll add this as well to my TODO list.
>> - test with other compilers than DECC > Who uses anything else? The build scripts are prepared for VAXC and for GCC as well. I share your opinion that these compilers are not used that often nowadays... but on old vaxes VAXC still rules and GCC might get a wing in the future. It is worth testing at all, unfortunately I do not have environment for that. >> OPTIONAL TODO >> - in order to make life more compatible we could use the same logicals >> like HP's SSL product - I mean SSL$ROOT instead of SSLROOT >If there _is_ a good reason to make a change like this, please explain why In the past almost 10 years nobody used any other SSL on OpenVMS but HP's. I know that it is utopist thought - but I would prefer to have one SSL library on OpenVMS - even better it that would be supported by HP itself. It is rather easy to make few steps towards HP's SSL build that might motivate and encourage HP to send back their changes to the openssl community. Like this the whole OpenVMS community would benefit... as well as HP's supported SSL product build would be trivial and reduce to regression tests and repackaging. I am an optimist and unitarist who still believe in tolerance and free will's good choices. Regards, Z -----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Schweda [mailto:s...@antinode.info] Sent: den 15 augusti 2009 18:39 To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta3 release v. VMS From: "Arpadffy Zoltan" <zoltan.arpad...@scientificgames.se> > This patch corrects build on OpenVMS systems. I haven't looked at it yet, but ... > As VMS does not have a make clean function yet, it was hard to separate > the really modified files from the copied (poor symlink imitation on > VMS) etc. Copied files? What's copied? I thought that I had eliminated all the file copying (and the need for any symlinks). > TODO: > [...] > - test with other compilers than DECC Who uses anything else? > OPTIONAL TODO > - in order to make life more compatible we could use the same logicals > like HP's SSL product - I mean SSL$ROOT instead of SSLROOT I changed the library names from xxx to SSL_xxx to look more like HP's SSL$xxx (and so I could find them), but I don't see a good reason to go further than that. I believe that many people and procedures use these SSL* logical names to determine which SSL package is being used. Making everything look exactly the same would seem likely to cause more trouble than leaving them different. If there _is_ a good reason to make a change like this, please explain why, how, and so on, and why it wouldn't break a lot of existing stuff. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven M. Schweda s...@antinode-info 382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818 Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
