tjh at cryptsoft.com
Wed Jan 10 07:21:34 UTC 2018
Follow on from the discussion in PR#5035, I think we need to add a "status"
definition to the platform which should cover the different contexts:
1) libraries compile
2) apps compile
3) make test passes
We have platforms where we don't compile the apps and we have platforms
where there are issues in the tests - i.e. the library (with or without the
apps) compiles and operates correctly but there is a defect in the tests.
Defects in tests or defects in the apps are different to defects in the
The apps not being ported also does not mean the platform is unusable.
That level of differences should be recorded. Perhaps a status for each?
For many platforms, the apps and the tests simply don't work or are not
used; and our test automation platform also does not operate for many
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk at mit.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:12:56PM +0100, Richard Levitte wrote:
> > Speaking of platforms, I think we need to discuss what we actually
> > include in the secondary category. The platform policy currently
> > mentions these:
> > FreeBSD, Windows (Visual Studio, MinGW), MacOS X and VMS
> > For Windows and VMS, I know for sure that it follows our definition of
> > the secondary category (*), but for FreeBSD and MacOS X, I think we
> > may have lost the people who actively supported them (for FreeBSD,
> > that was Ben Laurie as far as I recall).
> > So I think we need a raise of hands, here and now:
> > 1. Is there anyone currently present on this list that want to take
> > on FreeBSD or MacOS X?
> I guess maybe this is overcome by events since I commented on github
> already, but I can take FreeBSD (amd64). I can spin up i386 FreeBSD
> in the lead up to new releases but don't normally use it on a
> regular basis.
> openssl-project mailing list
> openssl-project at openssl.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openssl-project