Re: Windows: openssl & gssapi dislike each other

On 2025-03-26 We 4:53 AM, vignesh C wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 21:05, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>>> On 31 Jan 2025, at 16:29, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>>>> #ifdef ENABLE_GSS
>>>> -#if defined(HAVE_GSSAPI_H)
>>>> -#include <gssapi.h>
>>>> -#else
>>>> -#include <gssapi/gssapi.h>
>>>> -#endif /* HAVE_GSSAPI_H */
>>>> +#include "libpq/pg-gssapi.h"
>>>> #endif /* ENABLE_GSS */
>>> This #ifdef ENABLE_GSS probably isn't necessary anymore.
>> Yeah, I only left it for code documentation reasons to keep readers from
>> thinking the ifdef was missing and had to go chase it in the new file. It's
>> definitely not required though I for sure don't mind removing it if others feel
>> it's pointless.
> Few thoughts:
> 1) I also felt that this could be removed.
>
> 2) Was the copyright year retained as 1996 intentionally for the new
> "pg-gssapi.h" file added because the contents were copied from other
> files?
> + * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2025, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
> + * Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
>
> I see in few other places were new file was created, it was mentioned
> as "Copyright (c) 2025, PostgreSQL Global Development Group"
>
> 3) Apart from that, there was a small whitespace issue while applying the patch:
> git am v1-0001-Move-GSSAPI-includes-into-its-own-header.patch
> Applying: Move GSSAPI includes into its own header
> .git/rebase-apply/patch:116: new blank line at EOF.
> +
> warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.
>
> Overall patch looks good to me.
>

LGTM too.

I was hoping to test it but I haven't been able to set up an environment
for testing. But I don't think that should hold it up.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com