Thank you.
As you pointed out, I agree that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits, so I
believe it’s best not to apply this change.
(And as you mentioned, some headers are indeed necessary. Sorry, my bad.)


On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 6:10 PM Theo Buehler <tb@theobuehler.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 05:52:19PM +0900, Kenjiro Nakayama wrote:
> > This patch removes unnecessary OPENSS_NO_xxx such as OPENSSL_NO_LHASH,
> > OPENSSL_NO_STACK and OPENSSL_NO_X509.
>
> Thanks. In what sense are they unnecessary? For example, ssl.h requires
> x509.h because ssl.h uses STACK_OF(X509) which is declared in x509.h:
>
> x509/x509.h:151:DECLARE_STACK_OF(X509)
>
> so it should include it directly.
>
> While I agree with some of the other changes, the problem with committing
> such a diff is that applications might rely on such implicit inclusions
> and thus fail to compile. For example, err.h used to depend on lhash and
> it is difficult to know whether some application out there relied on that.
>
> So the cost of doing this might well outweigh the benefit.
>


-- 
Kenjiro NAKAYAMA <nakayamakenjiro@gmail.com>
GPG Key fingerprint = ED8F 049D E67A 727D 9A44  8E25 F44B E208 C946 5EB9