On 28 June 2012 14:06, Marc Hoersken <info_at_marc-hoersken.de> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> 2012/6/28 Yang Tse <yangsita_at_gmail.com>:
>> Yes, yes. I'm certainly in favour of that. Although I want explicit
>> approval on this thread from Marc Hoersken in order to interpret his
>> proposal in this way, given that his proposal would be affected by
>> this.
>
> Of course I would like the proposed literals to fit into the
> corresponding configuration scheme. --with-SCHANNEL or
> --with-WINDOWS-SSL really doesn't make any sense.
>
> For my proposal this would mean, as you proposed:
>
> [Config_Literal="SCHANNEL"]
> configure: --with-schannel
> other: WITH_SCHANNEL or ENABLE_SCHANNEL
>
> [Config_Literal="WINDOWS_SSL"]
> configure: --with-windows-ssl or --with-winssl (short form,
> corresponding to other parameters)
> other: WITH_WINDOWS_SSL or ENABLE_WINDOWS_SSL

I'm not sure the short form is necessary. There's no --with-ossl or
with-gtls etc., but I wouldn't veto it (even if I could :)

> We have to apply common sense and the logical restrictions applied by
> the environment.
>
> Best regards,
> Marc

-- 
Michael Wood <esiotrot_at_gmail.com>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette:  http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html