While looking at lighttpd failure to run with wolfssl as its backend[1], it was suggested to configure wolfssl with both '--enable-lighty', and '--enable-opensslall'.
While '--enable-lighty', in theory should make it work, wolfssl's crazy maze of preprocessor macros, combined with many empty functions and different data structures, make its behaviour unpredictable. Nonetheless, use of '--enable-lighty' should be harmless. Size increase is a little over 100 bytes, and it should make it easier for lighttpd to feature-test the library using 'HAVE_LIGHTY' instead of having to rely on support for other software, like 'HAVE_STUNNEL'. Changes in data structures that depend on compile options also make it hard to use alternative packages, like wolfssl-full and wolfssl-light. Pesonally, I think the size increase is not so dramatic, and there are so much code that gets disabled by its absence that I believe it should be enabled. I know that size matters, but having a library that works consistently is even more important. I am marking this RFC, as it has a broad impact. Please notice that the option name opensslall is somewhat misleading, since it is not a superset of opensslextra. Eneas [1] https://github.com/openwrt/packages/issues/14142 Eneas U de Queiroz (2): wolfssl: add lighty support, skip crypttests wolfssl: compile with --enable-opensslall package/libs/wolfssl/Makefile | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel