On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 25.08.2015 17:31, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 25.08.2015 13:49, brane_at_apache.org wrote:
> >>> Author: brane
> >>> Date: Tue Aug 25 11:49:09 2015
> >>> New Revision: 1697654
> >>>
> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1697654
> >>> Log:
> >>> * branches/1.9.x/STATUS:
> >>> - Approve r1693886.
> >>> - Temporarily veto r1694481; the change looks broken.
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> @@ -98,5 +84,22 @@ Candidate changes:
> >>> Veto-blocked changes:
> >>> =====================
> >>>
> >>> + * r1694481
> >>> + Fix Unix build on systems without GPG agent.
> >>> + Justification:
> >>> + This is a user-reported issue.
> >>> + Votes:
> >>> + +1: stefan2, philip
> >>> + -1: brane (You can't just remove a public API implementation,
> >>> + even if it is deprecated. And the prototyps is still
> >>> + right there in svn_auth.h)
> >>> +
> >>> Approved changes:
> >>> =================
> >> r1694481 (conditionally) removes the implementation of a public API,
> >> whilst leaving the prototype in svn_auth.h untouched. This is a
> >> violation of our ABI compatibility rules, and also a linking error
> >> waiting to happen.
> >>
> > Except that the very problem is that
> > svn_auth__get_gpg_agent_simple_provider
> > is not implemented either if SVN_HAVE_GPG_AGENT
> > is not defined. And that linker problem is the one being
> > already reported and fixed by the patch.
> >
> > You are still right that we introduce another linker problem
> > further down the road for some people that stumbled
> > across the first one in the past. And not implementing
> > the public API is a bad thing.
> >
> > So, I think we need to do some coding to fix this on /trunk.
> > Question is whether we want to skip r1694481 as a stop-
> > gap patch for 1.9.1 and enable people to build SVN again.
>
>
> Daniel suggested inserting a dummy handler if we don't have the GPG
> agent support. I think that may be the only reasonable solution for both
> trunk and 1.9.1 (or .x if we don't thing it's important enough for .1).
>
> The real effort here is double-checking that a dummy handler won't break
> credentials resolution.
>
I think just starting with a full copying the GPG agent handler and
making each call return "failed" should work. Didn't try it, though.
-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2015-08-25 23:13:08 CEST