[gnutls-devel] GnuTLS | WIP: Add support for libidn2 2.1.1a for gnutls 3.5.x (!948)

[Development of GNU's TLS library]

New Merge Request !948

https://gitlab.com/gnutls/gnutls/merge_requests/948

Project:Branches: dakotarwilliams/gnutls:libidn2-symbol-fix-el6 to gnutls/gnutls:gnutls_3_5_x
Author:    Dakota Williams
Assignee:  


libidn2 >=2.1.0 removed `_idn2_punycode_[en|de]code` symbols from its
library. The preprocessor check in `str-idna.c` only checks for the
existence of libidn2, not the version. Therefore the symbol is declared,
but missing a definition. This showed up after linking to GnuTLS on EL6, which recently updated their distributed version of libidn2 to 2.1.1a.
A simplified version of this patch has already been accepted into the [EL6 package](https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnutls30/pull-request/1).

Also as part of this merge request, I cherry-picked the copyright update so that the static-analysis test would pass.

The Debian test seems to be failing due to OpenSSL being upgraded to 1.1.1a and exhibits the same behavior as https://gitlab.com/gnutls/gnutls/issues/572. I could use some guidance on how it was fixed for 3.6 so that it could be brought in here. I tried an approach of picking a few relevant-looking commits (c5a251d31cd987edd02cce142dac9665f5034d3b, d4202bc951de81ea4799ff74b37527f3f6ac1249, and b9709cac12a0f98442042d20c02a5d1e3c8efe5a) and resolving conflicts, which helped a bit, but found it more difficult when things went wrong afterwards. Any ideas would be appreciated.

## Checklist
 * [x] Code modified for feature
 * [ ] Test suite updated with functionality tests
 * [ ] Test suite updated with negative tests
 * [ ] Documentation updated / NEWS entry present (for non-trivial changes)

## Reviewer's checklist:
 * [ ] Any issues marked for closing are addressed
 * [ ] There is a test suite reasonably covering new functionality or modifications
 * [ ] Function naming, parameters, return values, types, etc., are consistent and according to `CONTRIBUTION.md`
 * [ ] This feature/change has adequate documentation added
 * [ ] No obvious mistakes in the code

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitLab: https://gitlab.com/gnutls/gnutls/merge_requests/948
You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnutls-devel/attachments/20190305/99231240/attachment-0001.html>