From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web12.4727.1590581559730302997 for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 05:12:39 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Swf0lpv4; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 207.211.31.120, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1590581558; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Rvk7ftQigiBbySJkZOZ7Rq8l2XZ8Jwf18ksfx6MO9qY=; b=Swf0lpv4ECC+K0Agw+9BUBeJbub00HapYxrJpma14miXH5dZpF4xM2s5RWdN7ABc+MBLHC gqWKQ4seH87UY8NqMQRlU7ew4Vq3/vSMDsFu5qVYImt2lnVdAoRsB9MvhzMFRhWSQ68GMJ yY7W7r0ufkhsHUq8tTOUJwHPkgQ43uY= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-355-1fPjllkJMwiXg_qtNLfg3A-1; Wed, 27 May 2020 08:12:35 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 1fPjllkJMwiXg_qtNLfg3A-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8694B846349; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:12:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-113-77.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.77]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C576710013D5; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:12:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process To: Bret Barkelew , Andrew Fish Cc: "devel@edk2.groups.io" , "spbrogan@outlook.com" , "rfc@edk2.groups.io" , "Desimone, Nathaniel L" , "Kinney, Michael D" , "Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)" References: <2107AEA7-9145-4FC9-9E1A-C396F23877ED@apple.com> From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 14:12:30 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 05/27/20 03:52, Bret Barkelew wrote: > So, today I followed the Wiki (that I had never seen) and now I’m staring down the barrel of this fellow… > [cid:image002.png@01D6338E.D6C64920] > > [Not using SSL_VERIFY_PEER due to out-of-date IO::Socket::SSL. > To use SSL please install IO::Socket::SSL with version>=2.007 at /usr/share/perl5/core_perl/Net/SMTP.pm line 270.] > > Anyone have thoughts? I’mma go get a scotch. I think your perl installation and your git installation may come from different sources, and the perl install may not satisfy the git install's dependencies. In GNU/Linux distribution lingo, I'd call this either a distribution error, or (maybe more precisely) a git package error. Normally the git package should spell out the pre-requisite package names, along with the minimum required package version(s). And the package manager should enforce that, when installing git. Other people appear to have encountered a similiar issue before: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/issues/24210#issuecomment-366831944 https://github.com/msys2/MSYS2-packages/issues/1152 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/54326 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/62948 When I check on my laptop now, I see: $ rpm --query --requires git-email [...] perl(Net::SMTP::SSL) [...] and recursively, $ rpm --query --requires perl-Net-SMTP-SSL [...] perl(IO::Socket::SSL) [...] In other words, whenever it was that I ran "yum install git-email" (for gaining access to the "git-send-email" command), yum made sure that "perl-Net-SMTP-SSL" and "perl-IO-Socket-SSL" would both be pulled in. (Assuming the RPM spec files spelled out minimum versions on the dependencies, yum would enforce those particular versions too.) So, it could be a MINGW64 packaging bug, perhaps. Thanks, Laszlo