Hi,
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 17:18, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On 09.03.23 15:12, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 16:54, Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9 Mar 2023, at 14:45, Peter Eisentraut
> >>> <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.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.
>
> Then we might as well use ssl_library as the key, like:
>
> {
> ...
> 'selinux': selinux,
> ssl_library: ssl,
> 'systemd': systemd,
> ...
> }
>
There will be a problem if ssl is not found. It will output 'none: NO'
because 'ssl_library' is initialized as 'none' for now. We can
initialize 'ssl_library' as 'ssl' but I am not sure that is a good
idea.
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft
