On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 itojun@iijlab.net wrote:

> >   Modified Files:
> >   	src/crypto/dist/openssl: e_os2.h
> >   	src/crypto/dist/openssl/crypto: symhacks.h
> >   	src/crypto/dist/openssl/crypto/bio: bio.h
> >   	src/crypto/dist/openssl/crypto/bn: bn.h
> >   	src/crypto/dist/openssl/crypto/des: des.h
> >   	src/crypto/dist/openssl/crypto/pem: pem.h
> >   	src/crypto/dist/openssl/crypto/pkcs7: pkcs7.h
> >   	src/crypto/dist/openssl/crypto/rand: rand.h
> >   	src/crypto/dist/openssl/crypto/x509: x509.h x509_vfy.h
> >   	src/crypto/dist/openssl/ssl: ssl.h ssl3.h
> >
> >   Log Message:
> >   unifdef VMS/WIN16/WIN32 in public headers, at least
> >
> >
> >is this actually necessary?  "dist" sources should not be changed
> >to be less portable for no reason...  the only real change i can
> >see this makes is making it harder for future openssl updates due
> >to unnecessary conflicts....
>
> 	header files shouldn't have #ifdef which easily conflict with what user
> 	would define by chance.  there's no portability issue, we won't and
> 	shouldn't use the removed prototypes (and whatever) anyways.

While I agree in general that we shouldn't polute the define space, we're
talking about openssl. Assuming I'm understanding this right,
openssl-using apps on all platforms will have to worry about these
defines, so they already can't use them differently than the openssl code
does. So us removing the defines will only help people writing openssl
code for NetBSD; as soon as they go somewhere else, they run into the same
define issues.

Since we didn't add the defines (assuming I understand it right), I think
we should leave them.

Take care,

Bill