Re: Why do we define HAVE_GSSAPI_EXT_H?
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-07-09T00:05:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi, On 2024-07-08 19:05:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > configure/meson define HAVE_GSSAPI_EXT_H / HAVE_GSSAPI_GSSAPI_EXT_H - but > > afaict we don't use those anywhere? > > It looks to me like it's just a byproduct of the autoconf macros > we use to verify that you have a sane installation: > > if test "$with_gssapi" = yes ; then > AC_CHECK_HEADERS(gssapi/gssapi.h, [], > [AC_CHECK_HEADERS(gssapi.h, [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([gssapi.h header file is required for GSSAPI])])]) > AC_CHECK_HEADERS(gssapi/gssapi_ext.h, [], > [AC_CHECK_HEADERS(gssapi_ext.h, [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([gssapi_ext.h header file is required for GSSAPI])])]) > fi > > There might be a variant of AC_CHECK_HEADERS that doesn't have > the default define-a-symbol action, not sure. Yep, the singular version doesn't. That's what my attached patch uses... > Maybe it's not really necessary to check both gssapi.h and > gssapi_ext.h, but I'm not very familiar with all the variants of > GSSAPI that are out there. Me neither. I think it's fine to check both, I am just suggesting not to define a pg_config.h symbol for both... Greetings, Andres Freund
Commits
-
meson: Add missing argument to gssapi.h check
- c3dafaaac389 18.0 landed
- cc50694c8d96 16.4 landed
- 5b707bb507bd 17.0 landed
-
Explicitly require MIT Kerberos for GSSAPI
- f7431bca8b01 16.0 cited