Re: Compiling beta2 with openssl on XP Pro

>Magnus and Tom,
>
>I may have found the "SSL compiles" fix. I ran across a
>similar problem at
>http://archive.neotonic.com/archive/clanlib-devel/browse_frm/th
>read/1621/6940
>
>The solution was to also link to gdi32.lib by using the compile
>flag -lgdi32. At least the compiler doesn't seem to balk about
>these missing
>functions any more and that DLL does seem to have the
>appropriate bitmap
>function names.
>
>Does this sound right?

That is at least partially correct. It does fix the issue, but I'm not
100% sure it's the fix we want. I'm looking at two different ways right
now. Right now we also build exclusively against a static version of
OpenSSL, and I (and everyone I spoke to about it) think it's better to
go with the DLL version. Which will require a couple of different fixes.

But it is a correct fix insofar as it enables you to compile and run.

//Magnus

Ok. I figured it was more complicated than that.

Thanks for the info.
-Tony

----- Original Message -----
From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Tony and Bryn Reina" <reina_ga(at)hotmail(dot)com>; "Tom Lane"
<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 9:00 PM
Subject: SV: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Compiling beta2 with openssl on XP Pro

>Magnus and Tom,
>
>I may have found the "SSL compiles" fix. I ran across a
>similar problem at
>http://archive.neotonic.com/archive/clanlib-devel/browse_frm/th
>read/1621/6940
>
>The solution was to also link to gdi32.lib by using the compile
>flag -lgdi32. At least the compiler doesn't seem to balk about
>these missing
>functions any more and that DLL does seem to have the
>appropriate bitmap
>function names.
>
>Does this sound right?

That is at least partially correct. It does fix the issue, but I'm not
100% sure it's the fix we want. I'm looking at two different ways right
now. Right now we also build exclusively against a static version of
OpenSSL, and I (and everyone I spoke to about it) think it's better to
go with the DLL version. Which will require a couple of different fixes.

But it is a correct fix insofar as it enables you to compile and run.

//Magnus

"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> That is at least partially correct. It does fix the issue, but I'm not
> 100% sure it's the fix we want. I'm looking at two different ways right
> now. Right now we also build exclusively against a static version of
> OpenSSL, and I (and everyone I spoke to about it) think it's better to
> go with the DLL version. Which will require a couple of different fixes.

Okay, I'll leave this as an open item till you send a patch.

regards, tom lane