mateczagany commented on code in PR #29265:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/29265#discussion_r4070530726
##########
flink-end-to-end-tests/test-scripts/common_ssl.sh:
##########
@@ -79,6 +79,11 @@ function _set_conf_ssl_helper {
if [ "${provider}" = "OPENSSL" -a "${provider_lib}" = "dynamic" ]; then
cp $FLINK_DIR/opt/flink-shaded-netty-tcnative-dynamic-*.jar
$FLINK_DIR/lib/
+ # if the CI prepared a newer OpenSSL than the system one (see
e2e-template.yml), prefer it;
+ # local/developer runs without that variable set keep using the system
OpenSSL as before
+ if [ -n "${FLINK_E2E_OPENSSL32_LIB:-}" ]; then
+ export
LD_LIBRARY_PATH="${FLINK_E2E_OPENSSL32_LIB}${LD_LIBRARY_PATH:+:${LD_LIBRARY_PATH}}"
+ fi
elif [ "${provider}" = "OPENSSL" -a "${provider_lib}" = "static" ]; then
Review Comment:
The licensing issue can be regarded as stale. BoringSSL has been Apache
license for a time now, and the latest flink-shaded version makes it clear in
the NOTICE files, and the fact that `flink-shaded-netty-tcnative-static` is
released now to the public.
The testing part I think is already kind of hard with unreleased versions of
`flink-shaded`.
Let's keep this out of this PR now, I think we already have enough work here
already. I will create a JIRA to make testing unreleased versions of
`flink-shaded` easier and do that in another PR, where I will address this too.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
