On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Ashesh Vashi <ashesh.va...@enterprisedb.com > wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net>wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Akshay Joshi >> <akshay.jo...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Ashesh Vashi >> >> <ashesh.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> Why are we talking about using the external application here? >> >> >> >> >> >> Because I suggested giving it some thought in case it turns out we >> have no >> >> other option. >> >> >> >>> >> >>> The only problem with the current implementation - is that it does use >> >>> new APIs for tunneling. >> >>> We can change the implementation based on the current supplied >> libssh2 on >> >>> most linux flavours. >> >>> i.e. libssh2 - 1.2.7 or later >> >>> >> >>> I have asked Akshay to check - if we can modify the current >> >>> implementation to use the older version of libssh2. (feasibility) >> >> >> >> >> >> I've already asked him to investigate whether there is another API that >> >> may be used that he may have missed. Only supporting old versions of >> libssh2 >> >> is unacceptable though - we need to support current versions, and >> ideally >> >> older ones as well for compatibility with Ubuntu/Debian/RHEL etc. >> > >> > >> > I have investigated, there are two functions >> libssh2_session_handshake >> > and libssh2_exit() which is not available in the older versions. >> > libssh2_session_handshake() is replacement function to >> > libssh2_session_startup()(deprecated) which was added in the version >> 1.2.8 >> > and >> > libssh2_exist() was added in the version 1.2.5. So to provide >> backward >> > compatibility we can perform the function check instead of configure >> > check and will add appropriate macros to build it properly. >> > >> > Thought??Comments? >> >> Uh, I'm not sure what you mean with "function check instead of >> configure check". You mean trying to load the function at runtime, >> with dlopen() and friends? I guess we could, but I don't think pgadmin >> has any functionality for that today, so it's going to bring in a fair >> amount of platform specific code, isn't it? But if it's not too >> complicated, it seems like a good choice. >> > He means to say - check function check at configuration. > i.e. > A lot of system does not have snprintf supported so a lot of packages > check existence of it at configuration and define HAVE_SNPRINTF macros. > Oh, that's what I would've called a configure check :) In that case, +1 for that since it's clearly the simplest way of getting it done. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
