deps: update to openssl-1.0.1m

[jasnell]

There are several updates pulled from:
nodejs/node#1206

1. Expand the distribution tarball into deps/openssl/openssl
2. replace all headers in openssl

change all openssl/include/openssl/*.h to include resolved symbolic
links and openssl/crypto/opensslconf.h to refer config/opensslconf.h

1. deps: separate sha256/sha512-x86_64.pl for openssl

sha256-x86_64.pl does not exist in the origin openssl distribution. It
was copied from sha512-x86_64.pl and both sha256/sha512 scripts were
modified so as to generates only one asm file specified as its key
hash length.

1. fix openssl assembly error on ia32 win32

x86masm.pl was mistakenly using .486 instruction set, why cpuid (and
perhaps others) are requiring .686 .

1. remove vpaesni-x86_64.asm in x64-win32-masm

It is no longer used.

1. remove unused backup file in openssl asm

deps/openssl/asm/x64-win32-masm/x86_64cpuid.asm.orig was accidentally
committed before.

1. fix keypress requirement in apps on win32

reapply b910613

/cc: @joyent/node-coreteam

[indutny]

LGTM, if it builds and tests are passing :)

[misterdjules]

Pasting my comments from #9441 so that we can continue the discussion here:

@shigeki @jasnell Looking at the changes, I think it would be better to make changes to deps/openssl/openssl.gyp instead of changes to the OpenSSL source itself to work around the symlinked headers. That makes us have to maintain one less floating patch.

I would also like to keep at least these commits:

• shigeki/node@a3e0da2.
• shigeki/node@ac89f8a.

as separate commits so that we can track them separately from the rest of the changes.

How does that sound?

[jasnell]

I'm good with whichever way you want to go.
On Mar 20, 2015 12:24 PM, "Julien Gilli" notifications@github.com wrote:

Pasting my comments from #9441
#9441 so that we can continue the
discussion here:

@shigeki https://github.com/shigeki @jasnell
https://github.com/jasnell Looking at the changes, I think it would be
better to make changes to deps/openssl/openssl.gyp instead of changes to
the OpenSSL source itself to work around the symlinked headers. That makes
us have to maintain one less floating patch.

I would also like to keep at least these commits:

• shigeki/node@a3e0da2
  shigeki/node@a3e0da2
  .
• shigeki/node@ac89f8a
  shigeki/node@ac89f8a
  .

as separate commits so that we can track them separately from the rest of
the changes.

How does that sound?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#9446 (comment).

[misterdjules]

Closing in favor of #9451.