Hello Richard, I have tested the OPENSSL-100-STABLE-SNAP-20091116 and it looks much better. Thank you for the merge.
I have two small remarks: 1. I'm still missing the pointer size choice. I think that it is wise to give the possibility to choose between 64 and 32 bit pointer size build. 2. Meanwhile the new development introduced four new functions that are longer than 32 chars. K-W-NUDFSYMS, 4 undefined symbols: %ILINK-I-UDFSYM, SSL_ADD_CLIENTHELLO_RENEGOTIATE %ILINK-I-UDFSYM, SSL_ADD_SERVERHELLO_RENEGOTIATE %ILINK-I-UDFSYM, SSL_PARSE_CLIENTHELLO_RENEGOTIA %ILINK-I-UDFSYM, SSL_PARSE_SERVERHELLO_RENEGOTIA Is there any possibility to handle these long function names issue automatically... with some coding rules or with merging trigger, that would solve automatically those VMS issues. Honestly, having that long function names is more sign of ignorance, than structure and good coding practice. Thank you. Regards, Z -----Original Message----- From: Richard Levitte [mailto:rich...@levitte.org] Sent: den 13 november 2009 09:44 To: openssl-dev@openssl.org; Arpadffy Zoltan Subject: Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta4 release In message <839c820b5c926b4b89713b3a6ed68d2aae5...@sgstmail.scigames.at> on Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:14:07 +0100, "Arpadffy Zoltan" <zoltan.arpad...@scientificgames.se> said: Zoltan.Arpadffy> ... my only wish is to get a clean build on OpenVMS Zoltan.Arpadffy> when I download the code next time. That's what we all want in the end... Can I suggest you have a look at today's snapshot (that goes for Stephen as well) and go from there? -- Richard Levitte rich...@levitte.org http://richard.levitte.org/ "Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!" -- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
