On 05/18/2017 09:34 AM, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Alex Rousskov wrote on Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:05:29AM -0600: >> On 05/18/2017 05:12 AM, Christos Tsantilas wrote: >>> Agrr... Using the openSSL version was the faster/easier way. Touching >>> autoconf may result to 2-3 full squid rebuilds to implement/test similar >>> fixes.
>> The alternative is to convince others that Squid will not support >> OpenSSL API implementations that lie about their OpenSSL API version. >> Judging by the time wasted on related discussions about API basics, I >> suspect it would be cheaper, in the long term, to use feature tests. > In general, using feature tests is also the cleaner and more > reliable way of dealing with API variations. Yes, of course. If we have to support same-API variations, then feature tests are the right solution. I hope there is consensus around that! Moreover, feature tests are often the right solution even when there are no same-API variations and all features _can_ be reliably detected by API version tests. The difficult question is: Given scarce resources, which is better: 1. spending many hours on supporting OpenSSL API variations or 2. spending those hours on other pressing Squid issues? I do not know the correct answer, but I know that * it is a difficult question without an algorithmic solution; * such questions often create expensive discussions that often end without reaching consensus; and * the Project lacks a mechanism to resolve consensus deadlocks. Alex. _______________________________________________ squid-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
