Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Path 1: update rcgen to version 0.12.1 #5591

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

haurog
Copy link

@haurog haurog commented Sep 5, 2024

As described in #5590 this PR shows all the necessary changes for update path 1.
In this solution, only minimal changes are necessary to achieve the goal described in #5590, but libp2p now depends on 2 different versions of rcgen.

Notes & open questions

Change checklist

I did not do the changes described below. I can do this once it is decided which update Path is the one to go.

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • A changelog entry has been made in the appropriate crates

Copy link
Member

@dariusc93 dariusc93 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR. I've always been curious on if libp2p would be able to build on risc-v, but never attempted myself so I am glad there is some interest on getting it working there.

Seeing you have another PR that is a "part 2" to this one, would it make more sense to have it all done in one PR?

@haurog
Copy link
Author

haurog commented Sep 5, 2024

Good to hear that other people are interested in getting it to compile on risc-v as well. The two PRs are two different ways to achieve the goal. I named them 'Path 1' and 'Path 2'. I hope the description in #5590 helps in understanding what and why I did it. The main reason for it was that I do not know the code base well enough to judge which approach is more feasible, so I submitted both versions for more experienced people to judge and improve upon.

@jxs
Copy link
Member

jxs commented Sep 5, 2024

replied on #5592 (review)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants