On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 25.08.2015 17:31, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> > wrote: > > > >> On 25.08.2015 13:49, br...@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.
