From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from secure.elehost.com (secure.elehost.com [185.209.179.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38F3F8F6B for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 21:15:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719263751; cv=none; b=m/UIM4NGshBnotVSqsAuKagi0PRhfIV/JNe3rX1sO4bOMGQQWN4HmlKQQXudhpZ67GRfMNNcZcpEPtL6imOg29hwyswbA6hCsnTHnVswOEjVOAE7tBimSgd/HOR6iuOLbU3WrmfCqju44h6br8wAlhZLM66yhj+lo2XKmXK0iEQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719263751; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5oY4HWZ5UtBoMEroF+MKXIWNfghzZsHBPRis1q+l1FA=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Od9OtcdK08j84f+rmyVwTk7sBbinz1M9WxpIeZFLh0yvdccu4ySLKF3sA++jOMrTs0/pXScbfbZL+MgVgP/6w77FZHfBgj3L+jedapv0th7L9Z4vylQHkLGakf7Ymk5nWM1o4D0RRLAOhiJiuKlYaU5GevaXMxIVxpeZK24DVIs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at secure.elehost.com Received: from Mazikeen (pool-99-228-12-196.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.228.12.196]) (authenticated bits=0) by secure.elehost.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 45OLFWu9532647 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 24 Jun 2024 21:15:33 GMT Reply-To: From: To: "'Dragan Simic'" , "'Randall Becker'" Cc: "'Johannes Schindelin'" , "'Randall S. Becker'" , References: <20240621180947.64419-1-randall.becker@nexbridge.ca> <20240621180947.64419-2-randall.becker@nexbridge.ca> <5dc18b418f57cb8376b9fd9a5a4ad9d7@manjaro.org> In-Reply-To: <5dc18b418f57cb8376b9fd9a5a4ad9d7@manjaro.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] Teach git version --build-options about libcurl Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 17:15:27 -0400 Organization: Nexbridge Inc. Message-ID: <036d01dac67b$a6457da0$f2d078e0$@nexbridge.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIUAP7e2wQYDPiBW6KIInLGycvnFgIwg5sTAi49iygCg92kzgHU27qKsR84oJA= Content-Language: en-ca On Monday, June 24, 2024 1:09 PM, Dragan Simic wrote: >On 2024-06-24 16:33, Randall Becker wrote: >> On Monday, June 24, 2024 10:13 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >>> I am not sure that this is the most helpful information Git can >>> provide: >>> It reports the version against which Git was _compiled_, whereas the >>> version it is _running against_ might be quite different. >>> >>> Wouldn't calling `curl_version()` make more sense here? >> >> I think the more important information is the build used. My reasoning >> is that one can call run curl --version to see the current curl >> install. However, different versions of curl have potential API >> changes - same argument with OpenSSL. What initiated this for me (the >> use case) started with a customer who incorrectly installed a git >> build for OpenSSL 3.2 (and its libcurl friend). Git would then get a >> compatibility issue when attempting to use either library. The >> customer did not know (!) they had the git for OpenSSL 3.2 version and >> I had no way to determine which one they had without seeing their path >> - hard in an email support situation. Having git version >> --build-options report what was used for the build *at a compatibility >> level* would have easily shown that the available library (after >> running openssl version or curl --version) reported different values. >> Otherwise, we are back to guessing what they installed. The goal is to >> compare what git expects with what git has available. The above series >> makes this comparative information available. > >How about announcing both versions of the library if they differ, and only one >version if they're the same? We're building this to serve as a way for debugging >various issues, having that information available could only be helpful. I don't have a huge problem with that except it will significantly decrease performance. We do not currently have to load libcurl/openssl to obtain the build version (it is the --build-options flag), so adding additional load on this command is not really what the series is about. Doing this run-time check might be something someone else may want to take on separately, but from a support use-case standpoint, it should be covered as is. Doing a comparison is a separate use case. --Randall