[Ovmsdev] ESP-IDF v4 / v5 - baby steps

[Ludovic LANGE]

Hi Mark,

You're certainly right : WolfSSH writes here 
https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssh : "wolfSSH is dependent on wolfCrypt, 
found as a part of wolfSSL".

So it seems we need to bundle it still, and it's a good thing we managed 
to have it more or less compile with ESP-IDF 5+ (a few bugs are still 
being ironed out - especially the OPENSSL compatibility layer, which may 
not be used if mongoose does use mbedTLS instead).

Regarding the integration, I tried (my best :-)) to have it build on 
both ESP-IDF 3, ESP-IDF 5 (and also ESP-IDF 4 with a small patch to the 
ESP-IDF build system itself). Of course I need help for testing / 
reproducing the builds and I'm grateful to those of you sparing some 
time to do exactly that.

I have another round of PRs waiting for some peer-review : 
https://github.com/openvehicles/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+author%3Allange+draft%3Afalse 


-> @List, do not hesitate to have a look - especially for the ones that 
are a little bit touchy:

  * https://github.com/openvehicles/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/pull/831
    is trying to guess whether the multiple switch case falls-through
    are wanted, or not. It impacts the code of multiple people, so it
    would be interesting if those people could have a look at it.
  * https://github.com/openvehicles/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/pull/835
    is also a big piece and would benefit from a peer-review.

Thanks in advance !

Regards,

Le 20/02/2023 à 08:07, Mark Webb-Johnson a écrit :
> Michael, Ludovic,
>
>> Actually one of the next things I wanted to try/determine is why you 
>> want/need to use wolfSSL instead of mbedTLS, which we've been using 
>> since wolfSSL failed so miserably about the Let's encrypt root 
>> certificate transition. Is there an issue with mbedTLS in idf5?
>
> My memory was that wolfssh required wolfssl? But I may be mistaken.
>
>> We still need to decide on the integration way. Mark's suggestion was 
>> doing the idf5 transition in a separate branch that will later become 
>> the new "master". That would keep the idf3 build clean from any 
>> regressions, but need merging any work done on that branch into the 
>> idf5 branch, which may become a lot of additional work, depending on 
>> the time needed to finish the transition.
>
> If this can cleanly be applied to the existing work, to allow building 
> under either v3 or v5 IDF, that would be ideal. IMHO, the separate 
> branch would only be required if the changes were very extensive and 
> breaking to v3.
>
> Regards, Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openvehicles.com/pipermail/ovmsdev/attachments/20230222/a2a41fed/attachment.htm>