OK, answering my own question, Debian support for libidn2 seems to be rather behind, so at least for now, my life with Debian maintainer hat on is easier if the option to build with libidn is retained. I shall commit the patch forthwith.
Cheers, Simon. On 09/05/17 23:12, Simon Kelley wrote: > On 09/05/17 19:35, Petr Menšík wrote: >> Hi Simon, hi everyone. >> >> Fedora wants to move from IDN 2003 to IDN 2008 support. Dnsmasq already >> supports IDN, but only older version. There is really little of IDN to >> support. I made a patch that allows explicit support for libidn2 along >> with original libidn. Because simple packaging, I could not use >> HAVE_IDN2. I chose HAVE_LIBIDN2 as a replacement. >> >> A link to Fedora bug, if you want to try difference: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1449150 >> >> Could it be merged? >> > > Is there any point in supporting both libraries? I'm not sure what the > point is. Any build which includes the IDN support (which is, broadly > distribution packages) will change to libidn2 so the libidn support just > becomes support overhead moving forward. It won't give people the old > behaviour unless they recompile. > > I could see slightly more point to an option which allowed the user to > specify IDN2003 rather than IDN2008 behaviour. It looks like that could > be done by forcing the IDN2_TRANSITIONAL flag to the idn2_to_ascii_lz() > call. > > Cheers, > > Simon. > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
