On 07/26/2013 06:29 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> This should probably go in for 1.1.1, but it's not a build-breaker
>>> so it needs review.
Glad I waited for a review.
>>
>> Not sure this approach to finding libgnutls.so is going to work
>> reliably. eg, we allow --with-gnutls=/some/dir to
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 01:26:56PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 04:13:28PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951637
> >
> > Newer gnutls uses nettle, rather than gcrypt, which is a lot nicer
> > regarding initialization. Yet we
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 04:13:28PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951637
>
> Newer gnutls uses nettle, rather than gcrypt, which is a lot nicer
> regarding initialization. Yet we were unconditionally initializing
> gcrypt even when gnutls wouldn't be using
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951637
Newer gnutls uses nettle, rather than gcrypt, which is a lot nicer
regarding initialization. Yet we were unconditionally initializing
gcrypt even when gnutls wouldn't be using it, and having two crypto
libraries linked into libvirt.so is pointles
