On 11/16/23 00:04, Theo Buehler wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 05:54:43AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 10:39:10PM -0500, A Tammy wrote: >>> On 11/14/23 09:46, Renaud Allard wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> Here is a small patch to add DNS over QUIC with knot DNS client. >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Best Regards >>> From the discussion it looks like, there's no choice but to use the >>> embedded library, as building ngtcp2 with gnutls isn't going to be possible. >> Nor desirable... >> >>> I'm ok with enabling quic on knot. I'm assuming someone else might have >>> an opinion on using embedded libraries. >> Well, if you use the embedded ngtcp2, keep an eye on it. The differences >> between 0.17.0 and 1.0.1 are very small, so it likely doesn't matter at >> this point. ngtcp2 is a small library, so building an extra copy is >> cheap. >> >>> Debian - https://packages.debian.org/sid/knot - and Fedora - >>> https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/knot/knot/fedora-rawhide.html#dependencies >>> - both use the embedded ngtcp2 library, so we won't be doing anything >>> weirdly different from other OSs. >>> >>> OKs? comments? opinions? >> Given that it uses the embedded ngtcp2, the dep on net/ngtcp2 doesn't >> look right. >> >> The main question knot users need to ask themselves is if they're really >> ok with depending on gnutls for a critical service. If I used this, I >> wouldn't be happy about it, but I am biased. Ultimately it's your choice >> as a maintainer and I won't object. >> > Ah, but it already does. So, really, I think it's fine if it's done > right.
Haha, yea, even more surprisingly, it doesn't even link to libssl/crypto!
