Add targets in Windows OneCore target for making building libraries for Windows Store apps easier.

[MouriNaruto]

It is based on the effort of #7729.

I have merged the changes mentioned by #7729 (comment) and adapt them to the new codebase because of #8622.

New targets which I have added

• VC-WIN32-UWP
• VC-WIN64A-UWP
• VC-WIN32-ARM-UWP
• VC-WIN64-ARM-UWP

Usage example

perl Configure VC-WIN64A-UWP no-asm no-uplink
nmake build_libs

File list in the build folder

E:\Projects\openssl\build>dir
 Volume in drive E is Workspace
 Volume Serial Number is 488C-764C

 Directory of E:\Projects\openssl\build

2019/05/12  05:05    <DIR>          .
2019/05/12  05:05    <DIR>          ..
2019/05/12  05:05    <DIR>          apps
2019/05/12  04:57           610,074 configdata.pm
2019/05/12  05:03    <DIR>          crypto
2019/05/12  04:57    <DIR>          doc
2019/05/12  04:57    <DIR>          engines
2019/05/12  05:05    <DIR>          fuzz
2019/05/12  04:57    <DIR>          include
2019/05/12  05:01         3,001,856 libcrypto-3.dll
2019/05/12  05:01         9,302,736 libcrypto-3.ilk
2019/05/12  05:01         9,973,760 libcrypto-3.pdb
2019/05/12  05:01               932 libcrypto-shlib-libcrypto.res
2019/05/12  05:01           111,773 libcrypto.def
2019/05/12  05:01           598,444 libcrypto.exp
2019/05/12  05:01         1,004,258 libcrypto.lib
2019/05/12  05:01             1,186 libcrypto.rc
2019/05/12  05:04        17,444,478 libcrypto_static.lib
2019/05/12  05:05           677,376 libssl-3.dll
2019/05/12  05:05         3,223,792 libssl-3.ilk
2019/05/12  05:05         2,355,200 libssl-3.pdb
2019/05/12  05:04               924 libssl-shlib-libssl.res
2019/05/12  05:05            14,119 libssl.def
2019/05/12  05:05            72,033 libssl.exp
2019/05/12  05:05           119,622 libssl.lib
2019/05/12  05:04             1,180 libssl.rc
2019/05/12  05:05         3,529,178 libssl_static.lib
2019/05/12  04:57         1,430,429 makefile
2019/05/12  05:05         1,093,632 ossl_static.pdb
2019/05/12  04:57    <DIR>          providers
2019/05/12  05:05    <DIR>          ssl
2019/05/12  05:05    <DIR>          test
2019/05/12  04:57    <DIR>          tools
2019/05/12  04:57    <DIR>          util
              21 File(s)     54,566,982 bytes
              13 Dir(s)  25,465,364,480 bytes free

Kenji Mouri

[levitte]

I'm much more positive than I was in #7729, for various reasons... I've learned some along the way, and the idea of this change has grown on me. I'm sorry for having tested your patience in the process.

[levitte]

Side thing: I wonder if Appveyor has what's needed to support UWP. We might want to consider adding a build that tries that. I would say that's for another PR, though.

[MouriNaruto]

Side thing: I wonder if Appveyor has what's needed to support UWP. We might want to consider adding a build that tries that. I would say that's for another PR, though.

My UWP app project uses AppVeyor. It uses Visual Studio 2017 or 2019 image.

When I build FFmpeg lib for UWP, I have written these code and hope it helps you.

@setlocal EnableDelayedExpansion
@echo off

set VisualStudioInstallerFolder="%ProgramFiles(x86)%\Microsoft Visual Studio\Installer"
if %PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE%==x86 set VisualStudioInstallerFolder="%ProgramFiles%\Microsoft Visual Studio\Installer"

pushd %VisualStudioInstallerFolder%
for /f "usebackq tokens=*" %%i in (`vswhere -latest -products * -requires Microsoft.VisualStudio.Component.VC.Tools.x86.x64 -property installationPath`) do (
  set VisualStudioInstallDir=%%i
)
popd

if %1==x86 set VisualStudioToolKitType=x86
if %1==x64 set VisualStudioToolKitType=x86_amd64
if %1==ARM set VisualStudioToolKitType=x86_arm
if %1==ARM64  set VisualStudioToolKitType=x86_arm64

call "%VisualStudioInstallDir%\VC\Auxiliary\Build\vcvarsall.bat" %VisualStudioToolKitType% uwp

Kenji Mouri

[levitte]

I like what I see. However, I'd like to do a verification build, and I can't for about a week, so I hope you don't mind 'til then for a final approval from me.

Of course, this doesn't stop anyone else from @openssl to look and review...

[MouriNaruto]

I like what I see. However, I'd like to do a verification build, and I can't for about a week, so I hope you don't mind 'til then for a final approval from me.
Of course, this doesn't stop anyone else from @openssl to look and review...

Got it. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kenji Mouri

[illera88]

@levitte any update on this?

Thanks

[MouriNaruto]

Any news? @levitte

[levitte]

Thanks for the reminder.

Incidently, I stumbled on this earlier this morning, and am trying to decide if that makes this effort futile or not. Any comments on that?

[MouriNaruto]

@levitte
I don't think this PR is useless. It can also help developers even the UWP app dead.

Everyone knows, Microsoft provide a way to use Windows Runtime XAML called XAML Island. It may be the future of the Windows application development.
We also know, there are some apps uses or will use XAML Island. For example, the Windows Terminal app which is open source from Microsoft.

If you read the source code of the Windows Terminal app, you will know it has two parts: Win32 app (in the form of exe) and UWP app (in the form of dll but renamed by exe). Win32 exe uses XAML Island to load the UWP dll.

In general, if we want to develop a app which uses Windows Runtime XAML today. We still need to create an UWP app project. (Because there is no XAML designer for non UWP C++ projects today. If we don't create an UWP app project, you will get an experience when you use WPF with the C++/CLI. It's more troublesome than writing a Win32 GUI app.)

If I want to use the Windows Runtime XAML with the XAML Island for developing an app with modern app experience (touch and pen device), I need to write two parts. If I can use the OpenSSL in the uwp part smoothly and integrate with Windows Runtime sockets easily, I won't choose the XAML Island.

I'm sure that when more developers touch the XAML Island, they'll agree with me.

So Microsoft has been forcing developers to touch the UWP app development. (In Linus way: "F**k you, Microsoft.")

I am not good at English but I hope you can know my meaning.

Thanks.

Kenji Mouri.

[MouriNaruto]

@levitte

For more information about the XAML Island:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/desktop/modernize/xaml-islands
https://github.com/marb2000/XamlIslands/tree/master/19H1_Insider_Samples/CppWin32App_With_Island

Hope it can help you to understand me.

Kenji Mouri

[jdm]

UWP is still important for upcoming platforms like the HoloLens 2, where it is a hard requirement.

[illera88]

@levitte it's taking more time just to have this debate than what it would take you to review the changes and run those tests you mentioned 20 days ago...

Can you please do it and we can the rest of us use it for other projects?

There are a lot of projects that are waiting on this.

Thanks

[levitte]

There's a non-technical problem with this PR. It's been marked as "trivial", and while I understand that it's technically a fairly trivial thing, the "trivial" marker isn't about how easy or hard the work was, but about copyright, and what can pass as non-copyrightable. I very much doubt that this work can be seen as such.

@openssl/omc, second opinion, please?

[levitte]

The solution to the triviality problem is, of course, to submit a signed CLA

[illera88]

This is the first time that you bring this problem up. Either is trivial or not, please say so and it will be treated as necessary. It seems that this is a never ending PR and that there is always an excuse to move on with it. You mentioned in the past that you tested the patience of everyone with this PR (and the original one). You sure are. Regards

…

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019, 7:08 PM Richard Levitte ***@***.***> wrote: The solution to the triviality problem is, of course, to submit a signed CLA <https://www.openssl.org/policies/cla.html> — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#8917?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABHT3KGA7AS6CXLWNNMW43DPYR4IJA5CNFSM4HMJALE2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODWYD5MQ#issuecomment-498089650>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABHT3KFRE4IMWTMTNSPMJWDPYR4IJANCNFSM4HMJALEQ> .

[levitte]

This is the first time that you bring this problem up.

I hadn't noticed that detail before, sorry.

Either is trivial or not, please say so and it will be treated as necessary.

This is a matter that I do not want to decide alone, so I'm asking for the help from my OMC colleagues.
However, a CLA is the ultimate solution regardless of that judgement (i.e. a signed CLA trumps any triviality marker), and it's up to @MouriNaruto to decide to submit one or not, not us.

[t-j-h]

It is a straight forward change - but @levitte is correct - this is non-trivial - so it needs a CLA in place.

[levitte]

I would suggest writing something in NOTES.WIN regarding the conditions for building for UWP, and most specifically that no-asm and no-uplink must be given.

[MouriNaruto]

@levitte @t-j-h
I have submitted a signed Corporate Contributor License Agreement (CCLA) to legal@opensslfoundation.org.

It's my first time to contribute source code to a famous project like this.

I don't care the copyright and hope it is merged ASAP because I wonder to help more people which have the same experience. So I added the "trivial" marker because I want to pass the CLA check.

But I still signed a CLA because I hope it will be easier for me to contribute to the repository of this project in the future.

I am very happy to hear that.

Thank you.

Kenji Mouri

[mattcaswell]

CLA has been received.

[MouriNaruto]

I would suggest writing something in NOTES.WIN regarding the conditions for building for UWP, and most specifically that no-asm and no-uplink must be given.

I have added some special notes. @levitte

Thank you.

Kenji Mouri

[illera88]

Thanks @MouriNaruto !

@levitte can you merge it now?

[MouriNaruto]

@levitte I have updated the source code and need your help.

#8917 (comment)

Thank you.

[HLXEasy]

Interesting discussion here. Next steps?

[illera88]

I think it's ready to be merged. @levitte or @mattcaswell can you please merge?

[mattcaswell]

I squashed these commits and made a trivial edit to remove some trailing whitespace. I also removed the "CLA: trivial" line from the commit message (sine we decided it wasn't trivial and a CLA was later submitted).

Pushed to master. Thanks all!

[MouriNaruto]

Thanks all! I am very excited about that.

Kenji Mouri

[MouriNaruto]

@levitte @mattcaswell Here is the next talk about the UWP support. (#9125)