Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/protobuf-c: bump to version 1.5.0

[Michael Nosthoff via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>]

Hi Thomas,

On Friday, January 05, 2024 09:28 CET, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> wrote:

> Hello Michael,
> 
> Sorry for the delay in looking at your patch, and thanks for your
> patch. A few questions below.
> 
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:36:34 +0100
> Michael Nosthoff via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote:
> 
> > - drops support for proto2
> > - fixes compatibility with protobuf >= 22.0
> 
> Is this fixing some build issues? We currently don't have protobuf >=
> 22.0 as far as I can see.

nope, we currently don't have build issues because we didn't bump protobuf for quite a while now.
Main reason is 
- raised dependencies of all the google projects (see [0]).
- some API breakages, so projects have to catch up first

this can also be seen at vckpg [1] where they are also still at protobuf (v3.)21.12  (current is (3.)25.1)

so this bump is just one puzzle piece to be able to bump protobuf and grpc in the future.
(you might remember I tried to bump grpc early in 2023 and I stopped because it got complicated)

> 
> > - to be compatible with new protobuf versions c++17 is now required
> >   when building with protoc (which we do for host) [0]
> > - require host gcc >= 7 for c++17 support, propagate to depending packets
> 
> Why does this requirement of gcc >= 7 only applies to the host variant
> of protobuf-c, not the target variant ?

i tried to express this in the line above. We only need c++17 when we build with the usage of protoc,
which is always a host tool and supplied by host-protobuf since we don't support compiling protobuf
files on the target. 

nevertheless it's still a bit weird, that protobuf-c relies on c++17 while latest protobuf versions
only require c++14.
(this is where protobuf-c enforces c++17 support when protoc is enabled: [2])

> 
> I was going to fix these myself, but then I wondered about the
> target/host question above, and I preferred to get back to you on this.
> Could you clarify this point, and submit a v2 that fixes the Config.in
> comments?

i would fix the Config.in remarks and respin. Should I add more clarification somewhere
in the Patch with the info supplied above?

> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> Thomas
> -- 
> Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
> https://bootlin.com

Regards,
Michael

[0] https://github.com/google/oss-policies-info/blob/main/foundational-cxx-support-matrix.md
[1] https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/issues/34995
[2] https://github.com/protobuf-c/protobuf-c/blob/master/build-cmake/CMakeLists.txt#L145

_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot