RE: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.36.0-rc0 - Build failure on NonStops
- From
rsbecker@nexbridge.com <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>
- Date
- Apr 6, 2022, 20:01 UTC
- Message-ID
- <047c01d849f1$1192a9c0$34b7fd40$@nexbridge.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqv8vmyysp.fsf@gitster.g>
On April 6, 2022 12:14 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 22 quoted lines
><rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes: > >> On April 4, 2022 6:33 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>To: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> >>>Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>; >>>git-packagers@googlegroups.com >>>Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.36.0-rc0 - Build failure on NonStops >>> >>>CSPRNG_METHOD? >> >> We already have >> >> CSPRNG_METHOD = openssl >> >> In the config for NonStop. Should that not have worked? > >In your original report, you said > >>> I thought we did not have a direct reference to OpenSSL. What do I >>> need here to resolve this? > >I misread it as "I did not directly ask to use OpenSSL---why am I seeing
breakage
>from RAND_bytes() that is an OpenSSL thing?", and where my suggestion to
look
>for CSPRNG_METHOD came from. > >Downthread, folks seem to have figured out that OpenSSL support failed to >include a necessary header and link with libraries, while I was offline
yesterday, so
>hopefully all is well? > >Since d073bdc6 (Merge branch 'bc/csprng-mktemps', 2022-02-11) the CSPRNG >code has been in 'master/main' and the topic was merged to 'next' much
earlier,
>at 2e32375c (Merge branch 'bc/csprng-mktemps' >into next, 2022-02-04). I was puzzled why it took this long for your
report to come,
>as I somehow thought you've been quite good at reporting portability issues
to
>your platform quickly, and was wondering if we broke something between the >time we merged it to 'next' and -rc0, but it seems that it was not working
from the
>beginning X-<.
The 2.35.1 build happened on 29 Jan 2022, which appears to be before the change. That's why I didn't report it. This was the first build/test since then. So, no surprise actually. The build was done on commit 4c53a8c20f8984adb226293a3ffd7b88c3f4ac1a. At least we know why the problem only showed up now. As I said, it's 50 hours to run the test cycle on ia64, so I only run this when an announcement happens.
Regards, Randall