Hi I have added the configure check for libssh2 version greater than 1.2.7. I'll also post the issue on mailing list.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > wrote: > >>> Can we identify which version of libssh is required, and have a > >>> configure check for it? AFAICT they are all on 1.2 until the *next* > >>> release - so is it really something that breaks on just a minor > >>> version? If so, we really need a configure check for it. > >>> > >>> I think it's ok to say that we can't build with that feature on 10.04 > >>> (assuming we can find a configure test for it). less sure about > >>> something that's less than a year old such as 11.10. > >> > >> Yeah, that seems reasonable. I'd also suggest pinging the libssh2 > >> mailing lists to see if there's another API that you've missed, or if > >> they can explain why it's necessary to provide the public key and > >> private one. > >> > >> So... something to think about in parallel with that; if we cannot > >> deal with this cleanly using libssh2, should we go back to the > >> original plan that Akshay and I discussed privately, which was to have > >> pgAdmin spawn ssh (or putty on Windows) processes to provide the > >> tunnels? > > > > Ugh. That seems pretty painful. Particularly on windows where you're > > going to end up with an actual window (whether hidden or not). > > It's ugly, but not necessarily painful. We have existing code for > finding executables and running them. And putty does have a tunnel app > which is (I believe), windowless. > > > I'd > > definitely suggest putting more effort into getting it working with > > libssh2 first. Absolute worst-case, maybe embed a verison of libssh > > inside pgadmin and use static linking until we hit more modern > > platforms? I don't believe it's that big... > > Right - and the licence is agreeable. At least that way we could more > easily tell what encryption library we're using, and show/hide the > public key option as appropriate. > > > (But yes, first try the list for it. And if you don't get responses > > there (at all), let me know and I'll bug some of the people - while I > > haven't used it myself, I do know at least one of those developers > > pretty well) > > Oh, you do? Handy... > > -- > Dave Page > Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com > Twitter: @pgsnake > > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > -- *Akshay Joshi Senior Software Engineer EnterpriseDB Corporation The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company Phone: +91 20-3058-9522 Mobile: +91 976-788-8246*
