In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:43:21 +0100, Erik
Leunissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
e.leunissen> This is what CHANGES (0.9.8g) says about how to build
e.leunissen> openssl outside the source tree:
e.leunissen>
e.leunissen> *) Add appropriate support for separate platform-dependent build
e.leunissen> directories. The recommended way to make a platform-dependent
e.leunissen> build directory is the following (tested on Linux), maybe with
e.leunissen> some local tweaks:
e.leunissen>
e.leunissen> # Place yourself outside of the OpenSSL source tree. In
e.leunissen> # this example, the environment variable OPENSSL_SOURCE
e.leunissen> # is assumed to contain the absolute OpenSSL source directory.
e.leunissen> mkdir -p objtree/"`uname -s`-`uname -r`-`uname -m`"
e.leunissen> cd objtree/"`uname -s`-`uname -r`-`uname -m`"
e.leunissen> (cd $OPENSSL_SOURCE; find . -type f) | while read F; do
e.leunissen> mkdir -p `dirname $F`
e.leunissen> ln -s $OPENSSL_SOURCE/$F $F
e.leunissen> done
e.leunissen>
e.leunissen> I understand that this method is better than there being
e.leunissen> no way at all. However, the words "appropriate" and
e.leunissen> "recommended way" are not appropriate here (IMHO). Other
e.leunissen> renown software packages allow for builds outside the
e.leunissen> source tree as follows;
e.leunissen>
e.leunissen> cd $BUILD_DIR ; # (if you're not there already)
e.leunissen> $SRC_DIR/configure
You're thinking of configuration scripts generated using auto* tools.
OpenSSL isn't one of those.
Yes, I agree, the method used above is a work around for a
configuration script that doesn't have a concept of a separate build
tree. To be frank, this question hasn't come up for quite a while, I
had pesonally forgotten the issue.
To change OpenSSL to support a separate build directory requires
changing the Configure script as well as all the Makefiles available.
An we can't use the VPATH method, because not all makes support it, so
there will be a need to refer to $SRC_DIR explicitely everywhere.
Patches are welcome!
e.leunissen> Does the openssl roadmap foresee a further development in
e.leunissen> this area, or is the current state deemed "the right
e.leunissen> thing"?
It isn't "the right thing", it's a work around. There's been other
things, such as security fixes, that have had much higher priority,
that's all. But as I said, patches are welcome!
Cheers,
Richard
--
Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://richard.levitte.org/
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including
the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-- C.S. Lewis
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
