On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 05:37:30PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> Touches quite a bit, but hopefully for the better. What platform are
> you targeting where you were unwilling to require gnutls as a prereq?
No specific platform as such, just that if you build with
--without-remote and --without-libvirtd we should not be
mandating use of gnutls. Various people have asked for this
feature over the years, so I think it is worth it.
>
> Overall, your patch looks sane, and you have a 'weak ACK' - that is, I'm
> willing to look the other way and let this patch go in, if you don't
> think it is worth even more refactoring to avoid quite so much leaky
> #ifdef throughout the code base.
Basically I'm following the approach used for SASL. It would be nice to
try and adapt virnet{tls,sasl}context.c so that all the functions still
exist, but have no-op impls, but that's much more work - I've tried it
before with SASL but never got a satisfactory result
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list