On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:25 AM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:12:57PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Michael Paquier
>> > <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > OK, after hacking that for a bit I have finished with option 2 and the
>> > > set of PG-like set of routines, the use of USE_SSL in the file
>> > > containing all the SHA functions of OpenBSD has proved to be really
>> > > ugly, but with a split things are really clear to the eye. The stuff I
>> > > got builds on OSX, Linux and MSVC. pgcrypto cannot link directly to
>> > > libpgcommon.a, so I am making it compile directly with the source
>> > > files, as it is doing on HEAD.
>> >
>> > Btw, attached is the patch I did for this part if there is any interest in it.
>>
>> After quickly eyeballing your patch, I agree with the decision of going
>> with (2), even if my gut initially told me that (1) would be better
>> because it'd require less makefile trickery.
Yeah, I thought the same thing as well when putting my hands in the
dirt... But the in the end (2) is really less ugly.
>> I'm surprised that you say pgcrypto cannot link libpgcommon directly.
>> Is there some insurmountable problem there? I notice your MSVC patch
>> uses libpgcommon while the Makefile symlinks the files.
I am running into some weird things when linking both on OSX... But I
am not done with it completely yet. I'll adjust that a bit more when
producing the set of patches that will be published. So let's see.
> People have, in the past, expressed concerns about linking in
> pgcrypto. Apparently, in some countries, it's a legal problem.
Do you have any references? I don't see that as a problem.
--
Michael