Re: [ptxdist] [PATCH] openssl: add dependency to libatomic

[Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@pengutronix.de>]

On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 03:20:25PM +0200, Christian Melki wrote:
> On 4/8/23 15:08, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 10:00:26AM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> >> Since openssl 3.x, libcrypto needs libatomic, at least on several 32 bit
> >> platforms (and on 64 bit it doesn't harm).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@pengutronix.de>
> >> ---
> >>  rules/openssl.in | 1 +
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/rules/openssl.in b/rules/openssl.in
> >> index 629ee3057..a86ca66a2 100644
> >> --- a/rules/openssl.in
> >> +++ b/rules/openssl.in
> >> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ menuconfig OPENSSL
> >>  	tristate
> >>  	select LIBC_DL
> >>  	select GCCLIBS_GCC_S
> >> +	select GCCLIBS_ATOMIC
> >>  	select CRYPTODEV_API		if OPENSSL_CRYPTODEV && BUILDTIME
> >>  	prompt "openssl                       "
> >>  	help
> > 
> > Hmm, with ptxdist-2023.04.0, I don't get the corresponding error any
> > more (and instead a reason warning that libatomic is unused). Let's drop
> > this for now.
> > 
> 
> atomic is going to be highly dependent on toolchain, arch etc.
> unless you're going to be more specific I suspect complains will happen
> in both directions.

True - now with the change removed, I see the issue on MIPS. Our
"reason" checker now claims that /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.3 depends on
libatomic.so.1 which is not there. v7a and v8a and x86_64 seem to be
happy without it.

> I'd be more interested why and where this pops up than adding a
> blanket _ATOMIC.  Ie. I agree on the drop. :)

I'm a bit unsure what to do now :)

rsc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel  |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9    |