On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:25 AM, David Fetter <da...@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.paqu...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers