In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 5 Feb 2003
17:44:56 +0100, Bodo Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
moeller> On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:42:00AM +0100, Martin Witzel wrote:
moeller>
moeller> >> Do you think that there is a strong reason for keeping (and repairing)
moeller> >> no-err?
moeller>
moeller> > Yes, indeed, I have a reason to make the no_err option work - it is
moeller> > code size. The option excludes many text strings from the compilation
moeller> > (if it works).
moeller> >
moeller> > I have looked into the many references which are broken when the
moeller> > crypto/err directory is not included in the build and have found
moeller> > it much easier to fix the build process so that the no_err option
moeller> > does what it is supposed to do - keep the directory and the entry
moeller> > points which other parts of the program reference, but suppress
moeller> > superfluous code and text strings. So this is now _my_ answer to
moeller> > the question I have asked here.
moeller>
moeller> Agreed; this is how 'no-err' should operate. (This is mostly about
moeller> suppressing text strings, not code -- we need to keep the actual error
moeller> queue.)
I've just tinkered with some changes and got it working the way it's
supposed to operate. I'm comitting in a minute or two.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
