Thread overview
Can someone help me convince apache-thrift accept this PR which fix LDC build
Jun 23
mw
Jun 23
mw
June 23

https://github.com/apache/thrift/pull/2404

their comments:

Downgrading openssl version? Because someone says something about some compiler? Really?

my reply:

openssl is not downgraded!

If you look closely, the openssl version in the dub.json is D's (not C's) openssl version, see here:
https://code.dlang.org/packages/openssl

Versions:				
2.0.3+1.1.0h | 2021-May-13
2.0.2+1.1.0h | 2021-Mar-09
2.0.1+1.1.0h | 2019-May-12
2.0.0+1.1.0h | 2018-Sep-17
1.1.6+1.0.1g | 2017-Nov-05

(the D openssl's version format is: <D openssl version>+<C openssl version>

For C's openssl both use_openssl_1_1 () and use_openssl_1_0 are supported.

Regard the popularity LDC compiler, please see the D's forum:

https://forum.dlang.org/

Can people here convince them LDC is an important D compiler.

Thanks.

June 23

On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 20:12:46 UTC, mw wrote:

>

https://github.com/apache/thrift/pull/2404

their comments:

Downgrading openssl version? Because someone says something about some compiler? Really?

Thank jmh530 for the PR comment, but I think they want to hear more about LDC:

>
Regard the popularity LDC compiler, please see the D's forum:

https://forum.dlang.org/

Can people here convince them LDC is an important D compiler.

June 24

On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 20:12:46 UTC, mw wrote:

>

https://github.com/apache/thrift/pull/2404

I think the pull request needs work, though the reviewer didn't do a good job of explaining why.

  1. It's not clear what causes the error message exactly. How could llvm_bswap conflict with nativeToBigEndian? They have different names. There should be an explanation for how the conflict arose, why it happens only with LDC, and how your proposed change fixes it.

  2. It's not explained what the conflict problem has anything to do with OpenSSL. Your pull request description makes no mention about OpenSSL, yet most of the changes in the diff are concerning it one way or the other.

  3. It's not explained what the OpenSSL changes are even needed for. "Fixing LDC" is not a sufficient explanation, they need to explain what exactly is broken, why it is broken, what is being changed, and how the change fixes the problem.

  4. The OpenSSL changes really should be in a completely separate pull request.

  5. If for whatever reason the OpenSSL changes cannot be in a separate pull request, then it should be explained why.

  6. There should also be a justification for why the problem is being fixed by making a change (or changes) in Apache Thrift, and not in LDC on the D OpenSSL bindings etc.

All answers to these questions should be included in commit messages or the pull request description.

I suggest closing that PR, and opening a new PR (or PRs) which address the above.