This was meant for building individual ciphers separately;
but nothing of this is maintained, it does not work
because we rely on central configuration by the Configure
utility with <openssl/opensslconf.h> etc., so the files
are only wasting space and time.
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.
instead I've picked "enc", because that's what's in the prototypes.
("_encrypt" is reserved only as an external name, but still
using it in an application doesn't look like good style to me --
and it certainly isn't if the point is just avoiding shadowing,
which is apparently why the previous name "encrypt" was changed.)
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: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
