Ask and ye shall receive:
1. You are 100% correct that recursive make is completely broken, and moving to a single makefile is a significant improvement even if something else is done in the medium/long term. 2. If using GMake everywhere is practical, I think it’s a good idea. I’ve worked on open source projects before that tried to support multiple makefile systems, and the results were so complicated as to be unmaintainable. Portability of compilation is the responsibility of the build system, not the project build built. This is essentially the same philosophy as CMake. The code and even Makefiles shouldn’t care what platform they are on unless they REALLY need to. Configure was the old way to do this, but IMHO it is showing its age. I first used Configure/gmake like, what, 20 years ago? And even then I had a custom precompiler to edit the inputs to take into account various stupidities of various platforms/architectures. 3. FIPS confuses the crap out of our developers every time they try to build it correctly. Any improvements you can make there will be greatly appreciated. 4. I don’t know if you had problems with it, but I’ve had problems for years with the extensive use of symlinks to source code within the OpenSSL source. If that could go away, I’d find the OpenSSL source much easier to understand and navigate. Off-topic #1: your article on goto fail and heartbleed is awesome, and should be read in its entirety by everyone working on security critical software. Off-topic #2: This would be a HUGE change, but I really wish OpenSSL would move towards something like Google Test to make it easier to write tests. Off-topic #3: If there is a move towards OpenSSL using CMake, I and possibly a few people I know would probably be willing to help. From: owner-openssl-...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl-...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of Mike Bland Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 9:59 AM To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: RE: Single-Makefile Build Experiment report I appreciate and may take you up on the offer, but it's still off-topic. ;-) I'd also be more inclined to accept after some feedback on my own offering. Mike On Aug 15, 2014 9:53 AM, "Tim Hollebeek" <tholleb...@trustwave.com<mailto:tholleb...@trustwave.com>> wrote: Mike, if you like, I can try to find some time next week for a phone call to answer questions and discuss our experience using CMake. I'm by no means an expert, but we've used it internally on a project and have come to believe it is completely awesome. Most open source projects are moving towards CMake-based build systems, and I see no reason why OpenSSL can't join that bandwagon. -Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-openssl-...@openssl.org<mailto:owner-openssl-...@openssl.org> [mailto:owner-openssl-...@openssl.org<mailto:owner-openssl-...@openssl.org>] On Behalf Of Mike Bland Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 5:35 PM To: openssl-dev@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-dev@openssl.org> Subject: Re: Single-Makefile Build Experiment report On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Tim Hollebeek <tholleb...@trustwave.com<mailto:tholleb...@trustwave.com>> wrote: > Have you considered moving to CMake? It makes lots of the issues you discuss > in the document just go away. cmake should work on the vast majority of > supported operating systems, if not all of them ... Nope; wasn't aware of CMake before to be honest. That's not to say I'd dismiss it out of hand, but I was constraining myself to maintaining compatibility with the existing toolchain, meaning Configure+{BSD,GNU} make. I got a long way maintaining compatibility between BSD and GNU, but ditched BSD near the end because of the absence of pattern rules. (Then again, do we really need to build sources in different directories with different CFLAGS, etc., or is that just an artifact of organic growth?) I will say that Geoff Thorpe and I discussed our ideas at length over the phone a few weeks back, and in a nutshell, what I've done here could serve as prologue to the complete overhaul of the build system that he has in mind. Some of what he described, if I remember correctly, sounds similar to what little I've just looked up about the CMake, but I don't recall him referring to it specifically. (He's pinged me to let me know he'll be available to comment on my report next week.) Mike ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-dev@openssl.org> Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org<mailto:majord...@openssl.org> ________________________________ This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. ________________________________ This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.
