crypto and ssl modules under OSX
Fri Dec 3 13:59:40 CET 2004
On 3 Dec 2004, at 09:01, Bjorn Gustavsson wrote:
> Sean Hinde <sean.hinde@REDACTED> writes:
>> Hi Bjorn,
>> I hope your change gets rid of the undocumented -lbundle1.o and
>> reverts to using the mechanism in the README - namely -bundle, and
>> using the cc program to link rather than ld
> No, sorry.
> Our Makefiles must work on all platforms (including other Unixes,
> Windows, VxWorks and other embedded system). Currently, the Makefiles
> use the C compiler for compiling and ld for linking.
> Starting to use the C compiler for linking will probably not work
> for some platform, so that is not an option.
> The best way to solve the problem would of course be to choose whether
> to use
> gcc or ld for linking on a platform-by-platform basis, but that would
> require changes to configure.in and many Makefiles in source code and
> a lot of
> time for testing.
I don't understand this - there is already an explicit rule done in
configure.in for darwin. You already have a DED_LD substitution for
precisely this purpose. The patch is trivial:
--- configure.in.orig Fri Dec 3 10:17:19 2004
+++ configure.in Fri Dec 3 10:18:13 2004
@@ -1162,8 +1162,9 @@
# Mach-O linker: a shared lib and a loadable
# object file is not the same thing.
- DED_LDFLAGS="-bundle -flat_namespace -undefined
+ DED_LDFLAGS="-bundle -flat_namespace -undefined
# assume GNU linker and ELF
So long as DED_LD is used for linking the various drivers then nothing
will be broken - everything else will use the default value of ld. I
provided a complete patch set sometime ago to do just this.
Equally I don't get the reluctance to tidy up or make any changes to
the build procedure. You have a set of Officially Supported platforms,
which you presumably can and do test every night in a fully automated
Unsupported platforms are just that - if you break the build for some
ancient version of some weird and wonderful UNIX toolchain as part of a
tidy up then the community will provide patches if they care enough. If
it becomes broken and no-one notices then that suggests that no-one is
using that platform anyway.
I see this in action most releases - the *BSD crew submit patches, and
Redhat Latest always seems to break something. No-one minds too much,
or if they do they either provide a fix it or use a supported platform.
You guys should be able to make more use of the open source community,
and support of "non-supported" platforms would seem to be a good start.
More information about the erlang-questions