[Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] libidn2 support

[Petr Menšík]

Hi Simon, hi everyone.

Fedora wants to move from IDN 2003 to IDN 2008 support. Dnsmasq already
supports IDN, but only older version. There is really little of IDN to
support. I made a patch that allows explicit support for libidn2 along
with original libidn. Because simple packaging, I could not use
HAVE_IDN2. I chose HAVE_LIBIDN2 as a replacement.

A link to Fedora bug, if you want to try difference:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1449150

Could it be merged?

Cheers,
Petr

[Simon Kelley]

Post by Petr Menšík
Hi Simon, hi everyone.
Fedora wants to move from IDN 2003 to IDN 2008 support. Dnsmasq already
supports IDN, but only older version. There is really little of IDN to
support. I made a patch that allows explicit support for libidn2 along
with original libidn. Because simple packaging, I could not use
HAVE_IDN2. I chose HAVE_LIBIDN2 as a replacement.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1449150
Could it be merged?

Is there any point in supporting both libraries? I'm not sure what the
point is. Any build which includes the IDN support (which is, broadly
distribution packages) will change to libidn2 so the libidn support just
becomes support overhead moving forward. It won't give people the old
behaviour unless they recompile.

I could see slightly more point to an option which allowed the user to
specify IDN2003 rather than IDN2008 behaviour. It looks like that could
be done by forcing the IDN2_TRANSITIONAL flag to the idn2_to_ascii_lz()
call.

Cheers,

Simon.

[Simon Kelley]

OK, answering my own question, Debian support for libidn2 seems to be
rather behind, so at least for now, my life with Debian maintainer hat
on is easier if the option to build with libidn is retained. I shall
commit the patch forthwith.


Cheers,

Simon.

Post by Simon Kelley

Post by Petr Menšík
Hi Simon, hi everyone.
Fedora wants to move from IDN 2003 to IDN 2008 support. Dnsmasq already
supports IDN, but only older version. There is really little of IDN to
support. I made a patch that allows explicit support for libidn2 along
with original libidn. Because simple packaging, I could not use
HAVE_IDN2. I chose HAVE_LIBIDN2 as a replacement.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1449150
Could it be merged?

Is there any point in supporting both libraries? I'm not sure what the
point is. Any build which includes the IDN support (which is, broadly
distribution packages) will change to libidn2 so the libidn support just
becomes support overhead moving forward. It won't give people the old
behaviour unless they recompile.
I could see slightly more point to an option which allowed the user to
specify IDN2003 rather than IDN2008 behaviour. It looks like that could
be done by forcing the IDN2_TRANSITIONAL flag to the idn2_to_ascii_lz()
call.
Cheers,
Simon.