> On 9 Mar 2023, at 15:12, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 16:54, Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9 Mar 2023, at 14:45, Peter Eisentraut
>>> <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> 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
