Hi, On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 17:24:28 +0500 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 7:24 PM Benjamin Barenblat <[email protected]> wrote: > > I will do an upload of 20230802.0 to experimental today, but I don’t > > think it fixes this issue. scoped_mock_log depends on symbols in > > GoogleMock, but there’s no good way to express those dependencies in a > > hypothetical libabsl_scoped_mock_log.so since libgmock.so doesn’t exist. > Thanks for the upload and the information. I'm going to check it soon. > > > The way upstream (Google) intends for all this to work is for protobuf > > to link its Abseil and GoogleMock dependencies statically. Is that > > possible? > It is possible, but not recommended. If abseil gets (security) fixes, > protobuf will not get it like in the case of loading fresh shared > libraries.
If this would unblock Protobuf/gRPC updates, it would still be an improvement: currently users get ancient versions that lack many features and have various open, unaddressed security updates. Trading getting open security issues resolved vs. potential security updates for abseil needing a rebuild of Protobuf/gRPC seems like a tradeoff where I see the advantage on enabling updates. I'm trying to use gRPC for Debian infrastructure (as I find it nice to use outside of Debian), but it is very frustrating that many features are missing (which is not a problem for me elsewhere as I'm not limited to the Debian packages). :-( Ansgar
