Feedback-ID: i131946ab:Fastmail
Message-ID: <9df9067d-5651-2d3e-e838-9e5d273f5524@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 14:45:24 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Subject: Re: meson: Non-feature feature options
Content-Language: en-US
To: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <ad65ffd1-a9a7-fda1-59c6-f7dc763c3051@enterprisedb.com>
 <20230208162310.scllwgr5qp3m5tme@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <c649abc4-8ede-dba2-1a28-e6ee3cf35006@gmail.com>
 <000d58dd-6164-f695-fe12-38ac7e37543b@gmail.com>
 <1d1eb740-e2d6-dd92-ba35-985af38b30d5@enterprisedb.com>
 <20230220194249.lkirdwhosjq6zdkc@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <CAN55FZ2Bz5P_sd2+1KBwWa9v4vDByM2UX7rKfzQs7yj6buojsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4e1fcc8d-77cf-082c-5dd8-9ab09bb7a05f@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAN55FZ3JkWJRgBOvaB0VDYg1F+v3QMg4vwVae1gpQ+mnsYc-3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <b695b531-eb98-87f1-45c8-13f2ed3973a8@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAN55FZ1UFQfKifUV=oAf+WseCxD0Kq3g_AvWEEety9VneMvzvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0fff0827-c1f5-d29c-2ee3-dc8c871176bf@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAN55FZ1=-jb38PujfcMWjAH8vDTYoxrgvz_oha_p+q0quMtzCw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN55FZ1=-jb38PujfcMWjAH8vDTYoxrgvz_oha_p+q0quMtzCw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9df9067d-5651-2d3e-e838-9e5d273f5524%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 03.03.23 11:01, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 12:16, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 02.03.23 11:41, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>>> I am kind of confused. I added these checks for considering other SSL
>>> implementations in the future, for this reason I have two nested if
>>> checks. The top one is for checking if we need to search an SSL
>>> library and the nested one is for checking if we need to search this
>>> specific SSL library. What do you think?
>>
>> I suppose that depends on how you envision integrating other SSL
>> libraries into this logic.  It's not that important right now; if the
>> structure makes sense to you, that's fine.
>>
>> Please send an updated patch with the small changes that have been
>> mentioned.
>>
> 
> The updated patch is attached.

This seems to work well.

One flaw, the "External libraries" summary shows something like

  ssl                    : YES 3.0.7

It would be nice if it showed "openssl".

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?