From: | Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: meson: Non-feature feature options |
Date: | 2023-03-09 14:12:26 |
Message-ID: | CAN55FZ3GLXkWHpVwwU=OpLxid2vjSSsvrpW8MRPMWzC3JRvD5w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 16:54, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>
> > On 9 Mar 2023, at 14:45, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> At least for 16 keeping it hardcoded is an entirely safe bet so +1 for leaving
> additional complexity for when needed.
We already have the 'ssl_library' variable. Can't we use that instead
of hardcoding 'openssl'? e.g:
summary(
{
'ssl': ssl.found() ? [ssl, '(@0@)'.format(ssl_library)] : ssl,
},
section: 'External libraries',
list_sep: ', ',
)
And it will output:
ssl : YES 3.0.8, (openssl)
I don't think that using 'ssl_library' will increase the complexity.
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-03-09 14:12:37 | Re: postgres_fdw, dblink, and CREATE SUBSCRIPTION security |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2023-03-09 13:54:53 | Re: meson: Non-feature feature options |