updating sgit

@Raziel

yup got same problem here:

@jabirulo

thank you very much for checking...

@all

Would anyone have any advice or an idea how to fix/work around this issue?

It's not the fault of AmiSSL (reverting to 5.11 doesn't do any good), nor does sgit can do anything about it in it's current state ("setenv GIT_SSL_NO_VERIFY 1" is set and doesn't fix it either)

It seems to be some change regarding ssl connection to the github page itself...but i can't "fix" a webpage

Losing the ability to fetch and build from source would be a major drawback and will probably introduce lots of bugs which are then only found during releases...

Thanks a lot

@Raziel

AFAIK, sgit doesn't use AmiSSL, so it is irrelevant looking at that. At least, the version I have is directly linked against the 7 year old OpenSSL 1.0.1u.

For me, the github clone command still works fine, but it could be that I get connected to a different location (to a server that has not been updated yet).

@Futaura

Did you try with the full scummvm source, because it works for me with the scummvm-tools source from the same dev.

So it seems to be a problem with the size of sources and not only the server(?)

@Futaura

Please add your findings to the tracker item.
https://github.com/sba1/simplegit/issues/53
You have much more insight in the workings than me

Thank you very much

I guess I should have left it running longer. I was cloning to the ram disk, but mine stops at around 6% with this error:

libgit error (12): SSL error: received early EOF(64490/1267719)

Seems like Github is terminating the connection for some reason, which may or may not have something to do with the old OpenSSL version that sgit uses.

Any chance to rebuild it using AMISSL?

https://github.com/sba1/simplegit/makefile.aos4.standalone:

#
# This is a makefile for building SimpleGit for AmigaOS
#
# Define USE_AMISSL=yes if you wish to build the AmiSSL-based
# version.
#
...

I tried a few times to build it, but the binary was not working. I also have an open issue in the repo. Unfortunately, it is not maintained any more.

@walkero

ok thx for trying.

Niether openssl version?

Hi everyone,
What is the latest version that has been compiled of sgit?

Mine (from sdk), is:
sgit version 0.639
using libgit2 0.26.3 and OpenSSL 1.0.1u 22 Sep 2016

I noticed on https://github.com/sba1/simplegit there had been a merge pull last year (2023). I cloned the repo and tried to compile (on my cross compiler setup under wsl2), but it failed to compile.

Is there a newer binary available anywhere?

Also, I have @billyfish's lg2 and sgit-amiga-libgit2_latest.
Not sure what the version is of lg2, but sgit-amiga-libgit2_latest comes up with
sgit 0.654 (05/18/2020).

I havent tried actually using lg2, but it does run (but don't know how well it interacts with git).
sgit-amiga-libgit2_latest fails with an error:
The libgit2 inialization failed!


So, what is the latest and greatest git command for working on 0S4?

Thanks
Dave

@davec555

You already got the latest revision, none were built after that

Currently there isn't a working git command for OS4. Yet another thing to add to the list of stuff that doesn't work unfortunately.

The problem (as far as I've seen anyhow) is that many people don't develop directly on OS4 and I've even had the comment (more than once) you would be mad to try. Personally I think you'd be mad to spend £2k on the hardware and NOT use it to develop on! But there appear to be few of us that think like that.

Anyway, I've been sat here trying to work out if I could get libgit2 to build against AmiSSL but I wouldn't have a clue how to even tell ligbit2 about AmiSSL. While AmiSSL says it's 100% OpenSSL compatible, at the end of the day it's not OpenSSL and without cmake find scripts and the like, it's probably beyond my skillset (again) to get it building.

I spent a day last weekend following along to one of the "build yourself a git client" articles, which happened to be in Python. It was fun. Everything looked do-able. Until you realise that everywhere they hit complicated bits, they skipped them (clone being one of the big ones, pack files being another - though I'm sure I could work that out). All the same it was fun and I thought I could take that approach instead.

Then I realised that OS4 has an ancient version of Python and I hit a very similar brick wall looking for a 3.x version of Python for OS4. There at least appeared to be a v3.8 but as is often the case, it's alpha and not been released, so may as well not exist.

Apologies if my tone comes off as negative, but it's how I'm feeling about the platform in general at the moment and consequently it's not getting anything like as much of my attention as I would have liked.

@MartinW

Has sgit stopped working? I remember it working okay for smaller projects, although it took some getting used to.

I did have trouble with sgit with larger projects (like ZitaFTP Server), which is a contributing factor to me reluctantly switching almost exclusively to cross-compiling. Like you, I'd rather work directly on AmigaOS, but I'm more productive when building on another machine.

The sgit source code is here. I remember having trouble finding it because the repository is called "simplegit" instead of "sgit.

Quote:
The lack of tools, outdated libraries and other problems can be frustrating, and squash motivation.

Hans

@Hans, yes, for me everything has been too big and it dies. It also lacks the options to be able to limit the size of the checkout. I found the source but it fails miserably to build just like a lot of other stuff. I even tried to create a smaller project by not including a whole section of the project and the checkout worked, then it failed because there’s a symlink in the repo and it died on that. At that point I gave up. Too many concessions having to be made to bother.

Hi all

Blimey it's been a while! I lost my dev set up on my old computer but I can take a look at rebuilding it again.

So my memory is like a sieve but I'm pretty sure that I had the option to build it so that it would use the amissl shared libraries rather than statically linking to openssl. The main issue was that at some point libgit2 moved over to using mmap () and munmap () and we didn't have support for those at the time.

Over the weekend I'll see if I can get it all set up again and see what I can do.

cheers

billy

@MartinW
Quote:

That's ok :) You are not the first one and sadly not the last one who by some reasons at first think that obscure AmigaOS4 it is something which worth _that_ much. And that it have all the tools and languages available, and have a lot of developers and users. That of course was never and never will the case. Remaining of us trying to fix it in one or another way, but there are just not so many of us (and never will).

Any obscure OS will have lack of tools, many strange things, lots of unfinished and unreleased stuff (and even released, but then removed), and lots of pure strange and unlogical things. Some of us tried as hard as possible to explain that for every newcomer about, that they not need to hold a lot of hope for, a lot of praise for, and there are no needs to make os4 looks as it didn't look like: in real is just obscure OS for the fanatics, hackers, low-level coders and all sort of ppls who in interest in “strange” things. But it will never be "usual OS where all available".

The usage of the cross-compiler is simply better at current time because of above reasons : we have few developers, they all busy with everything else, so instead of spend their time on making native version of sgit , or awk, or whatever, they will be better use bug free, 100% times tested by 1000..xx users and developers around the world from compiler version to produce _native_ version of their tools. Not native building ? Yes, of course not native! Is it bad ? In current realm we should be happy that we even have cross-compilers , so we have a way to make work to be done with less issues, or to be done at all : for example, if not cross-compiler, there will be no Odyssye before, because even compilation of Odyssey few years ago for me on normal modern notebook take a hour. When we compile "only" gui parts on X1000 natively (8% of whole code), it take as much as it takes to build whole webkit (remain 92% of code). So you can imagine no one want to spend 2 days on building a thing, which can be build for a hour (and even faster today), only for "we can build it native" reasons :)

Of course, that not mean we not need native development tools. Of course, we require them too and better to have them too. But if we should choose, then we have what we have and what developers find better, at least for now, in the current state of things.


You shouldn't think that is issue with OS4 only : same happens with any obscure OS (And not only PPC and Amiga based ones). Even for ZX Spectrum all the games, all the art, all the coding done on PC tools and cross-compiler tools, and then adapted/polished natively. That just the reality of obscure and unpopular OSes and hardware.

In other words, don't put OS4 where is not. In reality, it is an obscure OS with the developers-hackers and users who understand it issues, some of which, sadly, will never be fixed. And some will be even worse. If you can enjoy it as it, and accept — then there will be a fun for you. If you will “hope” for more and more and be it like you wanted it to be, or like you see it at first, then it will be just rage-quit, burn out, and all that stuff.

Another practice can be applied to all this amigaos stuff: once you feel you are start to be annoyed, disappointed by anything , just take a rest for a month, or two, or a year, and then back when you will have motivation : at least that how some of us did :)

@billyfish
Btw, MightyMax taken over GDB porting, and few days ago were dealt with breakpoint/tracing stuff (he develops on qemu with peg2 emulation). So at least after few years there are progress in :)

Would be great if you could spare the time, even if it's just to see if we can work out why we can't build the existing sources so that we can dig into the issues. I'll have to go back and have a look at why the build was failing when trying to build simplegit source itself. It wasn't the easiest of things to track down though as it was downloading stuff and patching stuff and doing a lot of things beyond simply building.

@MartinW

i don't use this tool, but i quickly recompiled it under openssl and something works there....
i haven't checked anything else but clone and chechout



you can definitely do it

@smarkusg so, firstly, the fact that sgit works for you there is highly likely down to the size of the repo you are checking out. 1.6MB will likely be fine. My repo is around 19MB and it fails at 98%. Like I said, I cut it down to a smaller repo which isn't a desperately sustainable solution and it did complete the checkout, but then it choked on a symlink.

But more importantly, it would be good to know how you built it. Because cloning simplegit to my Mac, then running the build inside the docker cross compiler didn't work. And I don't believe I'm alone in that. If it worked then we could look into things.

Maybe later today I can find some time to go back to it, have another go and post some of the problems.

[edit] I need to try the idea of cloning to the ram drive. That speedup could get round the SSL error on the larger repo. Only could because I think the speed issue comes from the network on OS4, not the disk.