His comments are:
1) Changes all references for `True64' to be `Tru64', which is the correct
spelling for the OS name.
2) Makes `alpha-cc' be the same as `alpha164-cc', and adds an `alphaold-cc'
entry that is the same as the previous `alpha-cc'. The reason is that most
people these days are using the newer compiler, so it should be the default.
3) Adds a bit of commentary to Configure, regarding the name changes of
the OS over the years, so it's not so confusing to people that haven't been
with the OS for a while.
4) Adds an `alpha-cc-rpath' target (which is *not* selected automatically
by Configure under any circumstance) that builds an RPATH into the
shared libraries. This is explained in the comment in Configure. It's
very very useful for people that want it, and people that don't want it
just shouldn't choose that target.
5) Adds the `-pthread' flag as the best way to get POSIX thread support
from the newer compiler.
6) Updates the Makefile targets, so that when the `alpha164-cc', `alpha-cc',
or `alpha-cc-rpath' target is what Configure is set to use, it uses a Makefile
target that includes the `-msym' option when building the shared library.
This is a performance enhancement.
7) Updates `config' so that if it detects you're running version 4 or 5
of the OS, it automatically selects `alpha-cc', but uses `alphaold-cc'
for versions 1-3 of the OS.
8) Updates the comment in opensslv.h, fixing both the OS name typo and
adding a reference to IRIX 6.x, since the shared library semantics are
virtually identical there.
there's support for building under Linux and True64 (using examples
from the programming manuals), including versioning that is currently
the same as OpenSSL versions but should really be a different series.
With this change, it's up to the users to decide if they want shared
libraries as well as the static ones. This decision now has to be
done at configuration time (well, not really, those who know what they
do can still do it the same way as before).
The OpenSSL programs (openssl and the test programs) are currently
always linked statically, but this may change in the future in a
configurable manner. The necessary makefile variables to enable this
are in place.
Also note that I have done absolutely nothing about the Windows target
to get something similar. On the other hand, DLLs are already the
default there, but without versioning, and I've no idea what the
possibilities for such a thing are there...
both a patch level and a beta status. IMHO, it also makes more sense
to have beta status be part of the development status than to have it
be an alternate name for patch levels under special conditions.
claim to be 0.9.5beta1).
(Are the version number examples correct -- the same numerical
code for:
* 0.9.3beta2-dev 0x00903002
* 0.9.3beta2 0x00903002
?)
