httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eli Marmor <>
Subject Re: mod_ssl
Date Sun, 12 Dec 1999 20:14:48 GMT
Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> In article <> you wrote:
> > [...]
> >> A combination distro can obviously be created... heck, it doesn't even
> >> have to be Ralf to do it. Eli: you could be the Apache/mod_ssl combination
> >> distro supplier :-). It might be interesting to see how many people are
> >> truly interested in that combination.
> > [...]
> >
> > I must check before, what is Israel's policy regarding to crypto
> > stuff, but if it is not a problem, I'll probably do it. In any case,
> > if my suggestion regarding to unifying of the patch scripts for the
> > various platforms will be adopted (Ralf?), then 90% of the work will
> > be already done.
> Sorry, if I'm still not well-informed and ask such silly (I'm still not
> up-to-date with all postings). But AFAIK your unification means that the Unix
> side of mod_ssl now uses Perl, too.

Wow, you are really not informed...

It's off-topic for this list (the main discussion was in your OWN
list...), so go to there and read, or go directly to the following

and then (only then):
(although most of it is obsolete)

and finally:

In addition, please read the message I sent to you personally.
I'm +1 to change all the four patched constants of Makefile.win32
(to define MOD_SSL_VERS_NUM and MOD_SSL_VERS_STR in the original
Makefile.win32, and to move the definition of SSL_INC and SSL_LIB
to an external place).

In short: Nobody mentioned using perl in UNIX. By "unification", I
meant unification of the functionalities, i.e. to make the
different scripts "compatible". Currently, there are no conflicts
between them. Most of the functionality is already compatible, and
one does some things that the other doesn't, while the other does
some things that the former doesn't. By adding the missing
finctionality to all the scripts, the generated source tree (of
Apache + mod_ssl) is the same, and we have a lot of benefits, such
as applying the patches under one platform and building it under
another one (I tried it successfully!), and other benefits.

By having 100% compatible scripts, the issue of having a patched
source tree ready for download, is less important, so we can avoid
bothering the list of new-httpd with these issues.

In any case, I suggest to move this discussion to another forum.
Eli Marmor

View raw message