On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 11:54 +0100, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
> >> I've meanwhile checked apps/x509.c, and patching it to send output to
> >> file is trivial (attached); but looking at the other output options
> >> around these lines makes me a bit unsure if these options are intended
> >> to go to STDOUT rather than to honor a file option? However if the later
> >> then I'm asking me why? Almost all options print their output to STDOUT
> >> and ignore a file option - except for the text option ...
> > no comments on this?
> > Is this behaviour now intended? Then lets close the RT with a comment
> > stating this;
> > or just an oversight, and can we then fix this (see my patches)?
>
> I'd argue that it's intentional. The original purpose for -out option
> appears to be to emit *certificate* itself, not information about it.
> Yes, this kind of means that I reckon that -text option should result in
> output to STDout, not to one appointed by -out. There also is
> inconsistent usage of STDout when treating -days parameter: error
> message should be printed on stderr, not STDout. If nobody screams for
> a week, http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=20156 will go down to 1.0.x. A.
I'm afraid that the change of the target of the -text option output will
break expectations of some scripts people in the wild use. Although it
is slightly more logical with the change than before I'd prefer keeping
it as is at least for 1.0.x. Of course the -days error output change is
fine.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
