1 2017-01-04 02:36:56 <instagibbs> RainMan28, there were some updates to print more helpful error messages, but I believe in 0.13.2 it will just return a txid and rebroadcast once it can get into the mempool
 2 2017-01-04 02:38:13 <instagibbs> in 0.13.2 you can set a command line option to reject the transaction instead if the chaining is too long (and not CommitTransaction)
 3 2017-01-04 02:39:06 <instagibbs> "-walletrejectlongchains"
 4 2017-01-04 15:36:44 <joecool> luke-jr: you have a knots chan?
 5 2017-01-04 15:36:47 <joecool> by any chance?
 6 2017-01-04 15:39:15 <luke-jr> joecool: not really. #bitcoin and #bitcoin-dev are fine
 7 2017-01-04 15:48:26 <joecool> luke-jr: looking into the libressl build breakage from openssl 1.1 compatibility, normally just need to check to see if LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER is exported
 8 2017-01-04 15:48:44 <joecool> i see a patch in the working tree on your ebuild for it
 9 2017-01-04 15:48:47 <joecool> contrib/rpm/bitcoin-0.12.0-libressl.patch <
10 2017-01-04 15:48:57 <joecool> that does just that, but I don't think it's getting applied
11 2017-01-04 15:51:10 <luke-jr> joecool: it's stale and unnecessary
12 2017-01-04 15:51:17 <luke-jr> there are no known problems with LibreSSL
13 2017-01-04 15:52:07 <joecool> grep -ir "0x10100000L" *
14 2017-01-04 15:52:13 <joecool> src/qt/paymentrequestplus.cpp:#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER >= 0x10100000L
15 2017-01-04 15:52:13 <joecool> src/qt/paymentrequestplus.cpp:#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER >= 0x10100000L
16 2017-01-04 15:52:34 <joecool> no check for libressl, it does not support the openssl 1.1 API
17 2017-01-04 15:52:48 <joecool> build fails
18 2017-01-04 15:53:44 <joecool> in other words, libressl requires the fallback to old code, which the libressl patch tells it to do
19 2017-01-04 15:53:56 <joecool> if defined(LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER) || (OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L)
20 2017-01-04 15:53:59 <joecool> ^ like so
21 2017-01-04 15:57:14 <joecool> (in case you're wondering, libressl's OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER = 0x20000000L)
22 2017-01-04 15:58:48 <luke-jr> joecool: that patch doesn't modify paymentrequestplus.cpp, and it has never been a problem to build with LibreSSL unmodified before..
23 2017-01-04 15:59:14 <joecool> luke-jr: because openssl 1.1 API breaks the shit out of everything
24 2017-01-04 15:59:17 <luke-jr> joecool: if LibreSSL wants the old code, then it shouldn't define OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER >= 0x10100000L
25 2017-01-04 15:59:44 <luke-jr> oh shoot, that's a recent addition
26 2017-01-04 15:59:56 <luke-jr> still, why is LibreSSL defining OpenSSL stuff?
27 2017-01-04 16:00:17 <joecool> for compatibility sake, lots of things look for OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER to be exported or freaks out
28 2017-01-04 16:01:04 <luke-jr> …
29 2017-01-04 16:01:17 <luke-jr> so define it to a version it's actually compatible with? wtf
30 2017-01-04 16:01:36 <joecool> luke-jr: openssl broke this AFTER libressl chose to do that
31 2017-01-04 16:01:52 <luke-jr> …………..
32 2017-01-04 16:01:55 <joecool> if anyone is to blame it's the openssl devs, seriously go look at how much broke and the complaints over at debian
33 2017-01-04 16:02:24 <luke-jr> joecool: there is no version of OpenSSL released with OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER >= 0x10100000L that the code doesn't work with, AFAIK
34 2017-01-04 16:02:31 <joecool> https://wiki.debian.org/OpenSSL-1.1 <
35 2017-01-04 16:02:34 <luke-jr> why would LibreSSL define to such a version before it's released?
36 2017-01-04 16:02:44 <luke-jr> joecool: can you give me a SSH account to look into this?
37 2017-01-04 16:03:18 <joecool> no, i've been pushing patches to gentoo for a month to add the libressl check, this is a known problem
38 2017-01-04 16:03:45 <luke-jr> it's a problem with LibreSSL, based on how you describe it
39 2017-01-04 16:04:03 <luke-jr> they should define a OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L
40 2017-01-04 16:04:05 <joecool> libressl also exports its own LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER, the solution is simple, check for it
41 2017-01-04 16:04:22 <luke-jr> unnecessary headaches created by incompetent developers
42 2017-01-04 16:04:55 <joecool> did you not see the debian link above? openssl is the one that decided to break nearly every package depending on it with their 1.1 release
43 2017-01-04 16:05:14 <luke-jr> that's beside the point
44 2017-01-04 16:05:28 <luke-jr> LibreSSL doesn't need to claim to be OpenSSL 1.1
45 2017-01-04 16:05:36 <luke-jr> if it's compatible only with 1.0, it should claim to be 1.0
46 2017-01-04 16:08:44 <joecool> it's not claiming to be openssl 1.1, it's claiming to be 2.0
47 2017-01-04 16:09:18 <joecool> and has been since before openssl 1.1 decided to push the SSL_CTX breaking changes
48 2017-01-04 16:10:12 <joecool> luke-jr: this is like arguing over supporting windows because windows does things different than linux, it's getting nowhere
49 2017-01-04 16:10:38 <joecool> you know two major linux distros either build or carry support to build off libressl as well as a major OS
50 2017-01-04 16:11:31 <luke-jr> joecool: please test and confirm this works: http://bpaste.net/show/ac2c68d93576
51 2017-01-04 16:16:50 <luke-jr> hold on, working on another fix
52 2017-01-04 16:18:25 <luke-jr> http://bpaste.net/show/7565deaf5c48
53 2017-01-04 16:19:46 <joecool> building now
54 2017-01-04 16:19:54 <joecool> will update if that works
55 2017-01-04 16:19:59 <luke-jr> joecool: note you will need to re-run autogen
56 2017-01-04 16:20:19 <joecool> luke-jr: i have ebuild managing the build
57 2017-01-04 16:22:46 <luke-jr> k
58 2017-01-04 16:25:30 <joecool> luke-jr: built and loaded up
59 2017-01-04 17:02:44 <luke-jr> joecool: http://bpaste.net/show/5acc82591b69
60 2017-01-04 17:04:50 <joecool> luke-jr: want me to try that one?
61 2017-01-04 17:04:57 <luke-jr> yeah
62 2017-01-04 17:05:03 <luke-jr> the previous one broke OSSL 1.1
63 2017-01-04 17:12:10 <luke-jr> joecool: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9475
64 2017-01-04 18:49:28 <joecool> luke-jr: running compile now
65 2017-01-04 18:55:50 <joecool> luke-jr: build works fine