autoconf -- when?

2001-02-22 Thread Dan Kegel

I just bumped up again against the fact that OpenSSL 
still lacks a modern autoconf system.

It *sure would be nice* if you'd use Gnu automake and autoconf
on posix-compliant systems, and keep the old Configure system
for non-posix systems.

Did I mention how nice that would be?  Damn, it would be nice.

- Dan
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: autoconf -- when?

2001-02-22 Thread Michael Sierchio

Dan Kegel wrote:
 
 I just bumped up again against the fact that OpenSSL
 still lacks a modern autoconf system.
 
 It *sure would be nice* if you'd use Gnu automake and autoconf
 on posix-compliant systems, and keep the old Configure system
 for non-posix systems.

I couldn't agree more.
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]



autoconf -- when?

2001-02-22 Thread Lenny Foner

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:02:02 -0800
From: Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I just bumped up again against the fact that OpenSSL 
still lacks a modern autoconf system.

It *sure would be nice* if you'd use Gnu automake and autoconf
on posix-compliant systems, and keep the old Configure system
for non-posix systems.

Did I mention how nice that would be?  Damn, it would be nice.

And I'll chime in Yet Again that I demonstrated that this worked fine
(for Unix platforms) for SSLeay 0.8.1, and hence shouldn't be much
more of a problem for OpenSSL, and that, while my patches were not
admissible to the source tree way back then, because of export
concerns, they are now.  Of course, you'll want to update them
for OpenSSL.

I believe that the discussion last time foundered on automake/autoconf
not working under Windows (at least w/o cygwin), but that others had
pointed out that it might therefore make sense to have a Windows
configuration and an all-the-rest-of-the-universe configuration, the
latter using autoconf/automake, and hence benefit from the enormous
amount of work that has already gone into making autoconf/automake work
for all those unix platforms---instead of reinventing it, badly and
in a piecemeal fashion, for this one particular piece of software.

Using autoconf/automake properly, of course, one should -also- not
require a Perl installation to do the installation.  This is yet
another reason why current OpenSSL installations are problematic,
especially since apparently having slightly incorrect Perl versions
caused things to break in hard-to-diagnose ways.

It just boggles my mind that OpenSSL is somehow so special that it
can't use the same system used by hundreds of other packages.  And
it's just not that hard to add---I or people working for me did so for
both SSLeay and for the SCM scheme interpreter, neither of which had
originally been written to use it but which weren't too hard to add.

[This was last discussed on December 15, 2000, and I would be happy to
forward relevant bits of the traffic back to the list, but I suspect
most people saw it the first time.]
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]