[PATCH] Windows builds revisited [fixes for #1335, #1704]

[Steph Fox-3]

Ignore my patches from last week, please. I've now split them down now into
smaller chunks, added some bits I missed the first time around and checked
everything I've done against the OpenSSL bug tracker:

- bug #1335 is fixed by the 'engine' patch (no-engine build fails)
- bug #1704 is fixed by the 'build' patch (/Zi request)
- bug #1598 should be closed as a duplicate of #153. The changed subject for
#153 means the earlier report doesn't show up in bug tracker searches for
ssl3_send_alert - that should probably be altered.

The 'engine' patch also introduces three --enable-* options for items that
are supposedly disabled by default, and disables them by default. Without
these changes, no-engine is still broken in mk1mf builds.

The 'build' patch also offers debug makefiles, adds library suffixes to
differentiate between dynamic/static/release/debug builds, and fixes a
handful of typos - some of which are *in variable names* - in the VC-32
makefile generation script.

There are two smaller patches, one of which allows nasm or no-asm to be
passed as an argument to ms/32all.bat in 0.9.8 or 0.9.9-dev, and the other
of which fixes an MSVC compile warning (read: build failure) in 0.9.9-dev
only.

The patches were all created using diff -ur --binary, which forces UNIX line
endings on all affected files. You may find that you need to run
patch -p1 --binary when applying them. Note that batch files do NOT need
CR/LF in order to run under NT-based systems.

I'd like to start work on making the test suite functional for builds with
configure lines other than 'perl Configure VC-WIN32', but it's a bit
pointless if nobody on the OpenSSL dev team responds. I didn't even know the
patches I sent last week wouldn't apply cleanly until I updated my openssl
snaps to check for intervening changes - and following the instructions in
the README turns all diff output to DOS, which I'm pretty sure isn't the way
to go :)

Thanks,

- Steph

ps This is the second time of sending. The openssl.org mail host doesn't
like patches this week - hopefully it copes with tar.gz.

[Geoff Thorpe]

Hi Steph,

Didn't see this show up on openssl-dev but that's probably because of the
attachments. In any case, I'll top-post to leave your original email there
(minus attachment) so that it's visible for whoever else wants to know.

FWIW, I had your original post still flagged as "TODO" in my mail-client, it's
just that like many other openssl hackers, windows is not my primary (or even
secondary) environment. In fact, as it happens I haven't touched it at all in
a couple of years but I need to reaquaint myself with it soon for other
reasons, so had planned on taking a look at your stuff then (esp. as it deals
with engine things).

Please ping me personally in a while if you've still not heard anything, but
FWIW this hadn't gone unnoticed, just unprocessed. OTOH if others get to this
before I do then great, but I will try to take a peek some time soon.

Cheers,
Geoff

On Saturday 05 July 2008 19:25:33 Steph Fox wrote:

> Ignore my patches from last week, please. I've now split them down now into
> smaller chunks, added some bits I missed the first time around and checked
> everything I've done against the OpenSSL bug tracker:
>
> - bug #1335 is fixed by the 'engine' patch (no-engine build fails)
> - bug #1704 is fixed by the 'build' patch (/Zi request)
> - bug #1598 should be closed as a duplicate of #153. The changed subject
> for #153 means the earlier report doesn't show up in bug tracker searches
> for ssl3_send_alert - that should probably be altered.
>
> The 'engine' patch also introduces three --enable-* options for items that
> are supposedly disabled by default, and disables them by default. Without
> these changes, no-engine is still broken in mk1mf builds.
>
> The 'build' patch also offers debug makefiles, adds library suffixes to
> differentiate between dynamic/static/release/debug builds, and fixes a
> handful of typos - some of which are *in variable names* - in the VC-32
> makefile generation script.
>
> There are two smaller patches, one of which allows nasm or no-asm to be
> passed as an argument to ms/32all.bat in 0.9.8 or 0.9.9-dev, and the other
> of which fixes an MSVC compile warning (read: build failure) in 0.9.9-dev
> only.
>
> The patches were all created using diff -ur --binary, which forces UNIX
> line endings on all affected files. You may find that you need to run
> patch -p1 --binary when applying them. Note that batch files do NOT need
> CR/LF in order to run under NT-based systems.
>
> I'd like to start work on making the test suite functional for builds with
> configure lines other than 'perl Configure VC-WIN32', but it's a bit
> pointless if nobody on the OpenSSL dev team responds. I didn't even know
> the patches I sent last week wouldn't apply cleanly until I updated my
> openssl snaps to check for intervening changes - and following the
> instructions in the README turns all diff output to DOS, which I'm pretty
> sure isn't the way to go :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Steph
>
> ps This is the second time of sending. The openssl.org mail host doesn't
> like patches this week - hopefully it copes with tar.gz.

--
Un terrien, c'est un singe avec des clefs de char...
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List                       openssl-dev@...
Automated List Manager                           majordomo@...

[Steph Fox-3]

Hi Geoff,

> Didn't see this show up on openssl-dev but that's probably because of the
> attachments. In any case, I'll top-post to leave your original email there
> (minus attachment) so that it's visible for whoever else wants to know.
>
> FWIW, I had your original post still flagged as "TODO" in my mail-client,
> it's
> just that like many other openssl hackers, windows is not my primary (or
> even
> secondary) environment.

Same all over the OSS world :)

> In fact, as it happens I haven't touched it at all in
> a couple of years but I need to reaquaint myself with it soon for other
> reasons, so had planned on taking a look at your stuff then (esp. as it
> deals
> with engine things).
>
> Please ping me personally in a while if you've still not heard anything,
> but
> FWIW this hadn't gone unnoticed, just unprocessed. OTOH if others get to
> this
> before I do then great, but I will try to take a peek some time soon.

Cool, thanks.

- Steph

______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List                       openssl-dev@...
Automated List Manager                           majordomo@...