Re: Facing error in git-imap-send while compiling Git

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

>> From my limited knowledge of OpenSSL libraries, I think the error has
>> more to do with 'SSL_library_init()' , which appears like a
>> constructor to the OpenSSL library. I found these emails regarding
>> "if" cases around this function. Please check out these patches:
>> 1. Rosen Penev:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20181227023548.396-1-rosenp@gmail.com/
>
> I remember that one. And I agreed with Junio that the documentation
> suggests that the call is _optional_, while the patch suggests that it
> would be _incorrect_ instead.
>
> And looking at
> https://www.openssl.org/docs/man1.1.1/man3/SSL_library_init.html suggests
> to me that it is still supported.
>
> Having said that, if I look at the headers installed for `libssl-dev`
> version `1.1.1-1ubuntu2.1~18.04.5` in my Ubuntu installation, I see that
> `/usr/include/openssl/ssl.h` defines that symbol as:
>
> 	#  define SSL_library_init() OPENSSL_init_ssl(0, NULL)
>
> but _only_:
>
> 	# if OPENSSL_API_COMPAT < 0x10100000L
>
> So maybe that disagrees with the documentation that says that
> SSL_library_init() is optional?
>
> The curious thing is that `OPENSSL_API_COMPAT` is not even defined
> anywhere. So maybe it _is_ the right thing to also `#define
> SSL_library_init() (void)` in the diff you listed above?
>
> _Maybe_ guarded within `#ifndef SSL_library_init ... #endif` guards?
>
>> 2. eroen: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20170112104219.563497-1-git-scm@occam.eroen.eu/
>
> That sounds like a good suggestion, too.
>
>> Are the fixes made in these patches relevant here. Please let me know
>> if I'm going wrong.
>
> Yes, both threads are relevant, and if you can reconcile them into a patch
> that makes Git compile with OpenSSL v1.1.1, I will try my best to review
> them (Cc: me, just in case).

I agree with the above reasoning and the suggestion given by Bates in
https://lore.kernel.org/git/66967e0e-8bd9-f4b6-d2d4-ccce9004f42e@nottheoilrig.com/
sounds like a reasonable one.

Thanks for digging and double-checking these two previous efforts,
and giving another round of thoughts on them.