> On 3 Nov 2021, at 16:06, Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> On 03.11.21 11:16, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 30 Oct 2021, at 14:11, Peter Eisentraut
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24.08.21 11:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>> So I'm tempted to suggest that we remove the built-in, non-OpenSSL cipher
>>>> and hash implementations in pgcrypto (basically INT_SRCS in
>>>> pgcrypto/Makefile), and then also pursue the simplifications in the
>>>> OpenSSL code paths described in [0].
>>>
>>> Here is a patch for this.
>> This patch doesn't work on Windows, which I think is because it pulls in
>> pgcrypto even in builds without OpenSSL. Poking at that led me to realize
>> that
>> we can simplify even more with this. The conditonal source includes can go
>> away and be replaced with a simple OBJS clause, and with that the special
>> hacks
>> in Mkvcbuild.pm to overcome that.
>> Attached is a diff on top of your patch to do the above. I haven't tested it
>> on Windows yet, but if you think it's in the right direction we'll take it
>> for
>> a spin in a CI with/without OpenSSL.
>
> Here is a consolidated patch. I have tested it locally, so it should be okay
> on Windows.
I don't think this bit is correct, as OSSL_TESTS have been removed from the
Makefie:
- $config->{openssl}
- ? GetTests("OSSL_TESTS", $m)
- : GetTests("INT_TESTS", $m);
+ GetTests("OSSL_TESTS", $m);
I think we need something like the (untested) diff below:
diff --git a/src/tools/msvc/vcregress.pl b/src/tools/msvc/vcregress.pl
index e3a323b8bf..fc2406b2be 100644
--- a/src/tools/msvc/vcregress.pl
+++ b/src/tools/msvc/vcregress.pl
@@ -729,13 +729,10 @@ sub fetchTests
# pgcrypto is special since the tests depend on the
# configuration of the build
- my $cftests =
- GetTests("OSSL_TESTS", $m);
my $pgptests =
$config->{zlib}
? GetTests("ZLIB_TST", $m)
: GetTests("ZLIB_OFF_TST", $m);
- $t =~ s/\$\(CF_TESTS\)/$cftests/;
$t =~ s/\$\(CF_PGP_TESTS\)/$pgptests/;
}
}
>> Now, *if* we merge the NSS patch this does introduce special cases again
>> which
>> this rips out. I prefer to try and fix them in that patch to keep avoiding
>> the
>> need for them rather than keep them on speculation for a patch which hasn't
>> been decided on.
>
> Okay, I wasn't sure about the preferred way forward here. I'm content with
> the approach you have chosen.
I'm honestly not sure either; but as the NSS patch author, if I break it I get
to keep both pieces =)
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
