> On 9 Mar 2023, at 15:12, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 16:54, Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 9 Mar 2023, at 14:45, Peter Eisentraut >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> How about we just hardcode "openssl" here instead? We could build that >>> array dynamically, of course, but maybe we leave that until we actually >>> have a need? >> >> At least for 16 keeping it hardcoded is an entirely safe bet so +1 for >> leaving >> additional complexity for when needed. > > We already have the 'ssl_library' variable. Can't we use that instead > of hardcoding 'openssl'? e.g: > > summary( > { > 'ssl': ssl.found() ? [ssl, '(@0@)'.format(ssl_library)] : ssl, > }, > section: 'External libraries', > list_sep: ', ', > ) > > And it will output: > ssl : YES 3.0.8, (openssl) > > I don't think that using 'ssl_library' will increase the complexity.
That seems like a good idea. -- Daniel Gustafsson
