This will soon be complemented with MacOS specific source code files and
INSTALL.MacOS.
I (Andy) have decided to get rid of a number of #include <sys/types.h>.
I've verified it's ok (both by examining /usr/include/*.h and compiling)
on a number of Unix platforms. Unfortunately I don't have Windows box
to verify this on. I really appreciate if somebody could try to compile
it and contact me a.s.a.p. in case a problem occurs.
Submitted by: Roy Wood <roy@centricsystems.ca>
Reviewed by: Andy Polyakov <appro@fy.chalmers.se>
in cryptlib.h (which is often included as "../cryptlib.h"), then the
question remains relative to which directory this is to be interpreted.
gcc went one further directory up, as intended; but makedepend thinks
differently, and so probably do some C compilers. So the ../ must go away;
thus e_os.h goes back into include/openssl (but I now use
#include "openssl/e_os.h" instead of <openssl/e_os.h> to make the point) --
and we have another huge bunch of dependency changes. Argh.
There were problems with putting e_os.h just into the top directory,
because the test programs are compiled within test/ in the "standard"
case in in their original directories in the makefile.one case;
and in the latter symlinks may not be available.
script, translates function codes better and doesn't need the K&R function
prototypes to work (NB. the K&R prototypes can't be wiped just yet: they are
still needed by the DEF generator...). I also ran the script with the -rewrite
option to update all the header and source files.
consistent in the source tree and replaced `/bin/rm' by `rm'. Additonally
cleaned up the `make links' target: Remove unnecessary semicolons, subsequent
redundant removes, inline point.sh into mklink.sh to speed processing and no
longer clutter the display with confusing stuff. Instead only the actually
done links are displayed.
1. The already released version was 0.9.1c and not 0.9.1b
2. The next release should be 0.9.2 and not 0.9.1d, because
first the changes are already too large, second we should avoid any more
0.9.1x confusions and third, the Apache version semantics of
VERSION.REVISION.PATCHLEVEL for the version string is reasonable (and here
.2 is already just a patchlevel and not major change).
tVS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
