From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more |
Date: | 2016-06-27 18:21:35 |
Message-ID: | c44c23af-c003-523b-a987-6c79349dee4c@proxel.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/27/2016 08:12 PM, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Andreas Karlsson 2016-06-27 <8a0a5959-0b83-3dc8-d9e7-66ce8c1c5bc7(at)proxel(dot)se>
>>> The errors you report make it sound like they broke API compatibility
>>> wholesale. Was that really their intent? If so, where are the changes
>>> documented?
>>
>> I do not see that they have documented the removal of the SSL_library_init
>> symbol anywhere. They changed the function into a macro in the following
>> commit. I guess we have to check for some other symbol, like SSL_new.
>
> I'm not an autoconf expert, but as said in the original mail, I could
> get the SSL_library_init check to work, even if that's a macro now:
Yes, we could do that, but I do not think we should check for the
existence of a backwards compatibility macro. Actually I think we may
want to skip much of the OpenSSL initialization code when compiling
against OpenSSL 1.1 since they have now added automatic initialization
of the library. Instead I think we should check for something we
actually will use like SSL_CTX_new().
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2016-06-27 18:22:56 | Re: Broken handling of lwlocknames.h |
Previous Message | Christoph Berg | 2016-06-27 18:12:12 | Re: OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more |