On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Andrew Cagney wrote:
On 28 February 2016 at 18:39, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote:
New commits:
commit 690fc62ba42febcb5b7c7040b6027756fe3c318f
Author: Paul Wouters <[email protected]>
Date: Sun Feb 28 18:39:05 2016 -0500
testing: Added basic-pluto-00 which runs the lib/libswan tests
Something on my build todo list is to try convincing everyone that
libswan should be abandoned; instead build: libpluto.a in
programs/pluto and link whack, cavp, pluto, and the above tests
against that. I guess this is as good a trigger as any for that
discussion :-)
It's not that I've something against libraries, just that here, the
effort seems to have stalled so badly and for so long that it now just
creates confusion. If a library or libraries is really desirable then
first straighten out pluto.
How is that different, apart from the directory location?
If we would redo things, I'd like to create a shared library that is an
API to pluto that other software could use directly, instead of everyone
writing their own whacking wrappers.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Swan-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
