xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] xfstests: add fssum tool

To: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] xfstests: add fssum tool
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:28:27 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Schmidt <list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "sbehrens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sbehrens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130813152822.GG2150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1375949833-1104-1-git-send-email-list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1375949833-1104-2-git-send-email-list.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5203D827.3050909@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20130812011539.GM12779@dastard> <BB446B35-F3DA-462E-9E2C-9E4B780BC6B9@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20130813152822.GG2150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
On 8/13/13 10:28 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 09:54:41PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On Aug 11, 2013, at 8:15 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:40:55PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> On 8/8/13 3:17 AM, Jan Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> SUBDIRS =
>>>>>
>>>>> LLDLIBS = $(LIBATTR) $(LIBHANDLE) $(LIBACL)
>>>>>
>>>>> +OPT_LDLIBS = -lssl -lcrypto
>>>>
>>>> Hm, new deps.  I guess it's not a huge problem, these should always
>>>> be available, right?
>>>
>>> Please, let's keep crypto out of xfstests if we can. That's just
>>> going to add a nightmare of US export compliance garbage to any
>>> distro that wants to package and ship this....
>>>
>> It's ssl that's (optionally) required for check summing I believe.  But it's 
>> optional if done properly...
>>
> 
> It doesn't build without -lcrypto for me, so either we have an external
> dependancy (which I'm fine with), or we add it to xfstests (which is what you
> wanted).  Does a config option alleviate your concerns?  And I it's just 
> linking
> it in at build time, I don't think we have to work about export compliance as
> long as we aren't shipping actual crytpo stuff right?  Anybody who is going to
> be running this stuff is going to have libssl installed, which installs
> libcrypto (at least on my box) so I don't think it's a huge deal to have us
> linking it.  Thanks,

Yeah I think linking in a consumer is not at all the same as exporting the 
functionality.

Looks like my Makefile patch needs to add both -lssl & -lcrypto after all,
but again, yeah, just linking against it _if_ it's there.

Oh, and here's my m4/package_ssldev.m4, sorry about that:

AC_DEFUN([AC_PACKAGE_WANT_SSL],
  [ AC_CHECK_HEADERS(openssl/md5.h, [ have_ssl=true ], [ have_ssl=false ])
    AC_SUBST(have_ssl)
  ])


-Eric

> Josef
> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>