Skip to content

Fix incomplete/broken nghttp2 build support on Windows - #1321

Closed
weltling wants to merge 8 commits into
curl:masterfrom
weltling:with_nghttp2_fix
Closed

Fix incomplete/broken nghttp2 build support on Windows#1321
weltling wants to merge 8 commits into
curl:masterfrom
weltling:with_nghttp2_fix

Conversation

@weltling

@weltling weltling commented Mar 10, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Things done

  • the flag name should be WITH_NGHTTP2, according to the current naming scheme. An external dep should always use "with" instead of "enable". The previous flag ENABLE_NGHTTP2 was kept for the compatibility reasons, so if passed it'll configure shared nghttp2 link as by default

  • the meaning of "with" was extended to allow shared/static link of nghttp2, the corresponding flags are passed as required by nghttp2.

  • nghttp2 does not depend on SSL of any kind, so the corresponding conditions are abandoned.

  • the build folder name is extended with "nghttp2-<dll|static>", as it's done for other libs

  • the library names are default as produced by the nghttp2 cmake configs.

thanks

@mention-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@weltling, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @yangtse, @mback2k and @msnelling to be potential reviewers.

@bagder bagder added the build label Mar 10, 2017
@rodwiddowson

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I'll happily review these and try to give them a spin if @welting can eyeball #1259 - otherwise it will never progress.

@weltling

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Thanks for keeping an eye, @rodwiddowson. This PR wasn't planned in the scope of #1322, but came out where i started the nghttp2 integration. I've just filed another one #1322, which targets the actual OpenSSL issue we have in a naive manner without breaking the current build approach. Basically, what were also discussed, is that one would keep the current approach, while making the lib names configurable. That's why I was wondering about #1259, as it seemed it were agreed to go by the suggestion to do it incrementally. We'll now need to choose a way to integrate these works somehow, but there will be for sure some merge conflicts. I would still suggest to go by an incremental integration, so we can thoroughly check every step and ensure the old way works, to hopefully get the whole accepted.

Thanks.

@bagder bagder closed this in df45f2c May 24, 2017
@bagder

bagder commented May 24, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks, squashed and merged!

@lock lock Bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 13, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants