| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: meson: Non-feature feature options |
| Date: | 2023-03-09 13:45:24 |
| Message-ID: | 9df9067d-5651-2d3e-e838-9e5d273f5524@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03.03.23 11:01, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 12:16, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 02.03.23 11:41, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>>> I am kind of confused. I added these checks for considering other SSL
>>> implementations in the future, for this reason I have two nested if
>>> checks. The top one is for checking if we need to search an SSL
>>> library and the nested one is for checking if we need to search this
>>> specific SSL library. What do you think?
>>
>> I suppose that depends on how you envision integrating other SSL
>> libraries into this logic. It's not that important right now; if the
>> structure makes sense to you, that's fine.
>>
>> Please send an updated patch with the small changes that have been
>> mentioned.
>>
>
> The updated patch is attached.
This seems to work well.
One flaw, the "External libraries" summary shows something like
ssl : YES 3.0.7
It would be nice if it showed "openssl".
How about we just hardcode "openssl" here instead? We could build that
array dynamically, of course, but maybe we leave that until we actually
have a need?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2023-03-09 13:54:53 | Re: meson: Non-feature feature options |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2023-03-09 13:28:42 | Re: buildfarm + meson |