ddef914bbb doc: remove extraneous install statement (tdb3)
bc532c915e doc: add with_bdb to unix build docs (tdb3)
Pull request description:
Existing instructions for building legacy wallet support omit `-DWITH_BDB=ON`, which results in:
```
CMake Warning:
Manually-specified variables were not used by the project:
BerkeleyDB_INCLUDE_DIR
```
and a build without BDB support.
This PR updates the docs to include `-DWITH_BDB=ON`.
Also adds a minor correction to the OpenBSD build doc.
Checked by building on Linux (Debian 12.7), FreeBSD 14.1, and OpenBSD 7.5 and attempting to create a legacy wallet with the `createwallet` rpc (with `-deprecatedrpc=create_bdb`).
ACKs for top commit:
l0rinc:
utACK ddef914bbb
fanquake:
ACK ddef914bbb
Tree-SHA512: 261568700b95fc073e03db6ca64a5f0544d5aed337aee4275575c1d0d1373c2a96911947abd202da3ed7c3b7a662b700b0596c0dabefe4b50900a798eed7e118
Pretty much all library packages were renamed in the 64-bit time_t
migration to add `t64` (even on 64-bit platforms).
Instead of complicating the doc with conditional package names, suggest
installing the `-dev` packages which still have the same name, and
besides that, are the right way to go about it as they contain the
"user facing" C++ headers needed to build against Qt5.
For Fedora, devel packages are already suggested.
This affects Ubuntu 24.04 and Debian Testing.
Our compile documentation isn't the right place for genric binary
hardening notes, which are neither particularly Bitcoin-Core specific,
or as relevant as they might have once been, i.e non-executable stacks
are now just the norm.
Just remove the notes for now, if someone has
something more interesting/Bitcoin Core specific, it could be added in
separate documentation in the future (maybe into the devwiki or
similar).
Split from
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27685#discussion_r1196517868.
Now that we can build a bdb-only depends prefix, there is no need to
maintain a bdb-building bash script, that does the same things as
depends, except worse, as it's missing patches and workarounds. i.e #26623.
No reason to have this here with outdated information. We already point
users to the depends readme, the doc cross builders should be pointed to
, within this doc.
We don't do this for any other dependency, and users are better looking
at the actual Boost site/docs. This isn't something we should need to
have in our build docs.
78e36700a0 doc: remove mention of system univalue (fanquake)
Pull request description:
Should have been part of #22646.
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
ACK 78e36700a0
Tree-SHA512: a5d54d73526033825ce4467cc3c57c26064739eef546556975a4c6f1f5bea84004640acd426734f90f98bc7a76ec837d716aa31167f2bdce7ee3887ad92e3152
This updates build-unix for the descriptor wallet, and prepares for
eventual legacy wallet deprecation.
- Move 'descriptor wallet' dependencies above legacy wallet deps both
for Debian and Fedora.
- Explicitly mention 'legacy wallet' where referring to the BerkeleyDB
wallet. Shorten BerkeleyDB instruction to a single paragraph.
This package is currently installed as a side-effect of installing our
other libboost-*-dev packages. However as those continue to dissapear,
it makes sense to install boost dev explicitly.
060a2a64d4 ci: remove boost thread installation (fanquake)
06e1d7d81d build: don't build or use Boost Thread (fanquake)
7097add83c refactor: replace Boost shared_mutex with std shared_mutex in sigcache (fanquake)
8e55981ef8 refactor: replace Boost shared_mutex with std shared_mutex in cuckoocache tests (fanquake)
Pull request description:
This replaces `boost::shared_mutex` and `boost::unique_lock` with [`std::shared_mutex`](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/shared_mutex) & [`std::unique_lock`](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/unique_lock).
Even though [some concerns were raised](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16684#issuecomment-726214696) in #16684 with regard to `std::shared_mutex` being unsafe to use across some glibc versions, I still think this change is an improvement. As I mentioned in #21022, I also think trying to restrict standard library feature usage based on bugs in glibc is not only hard to do, but it's not currently clear exactly how we do that in practice (does it also extend to patching out use in our dependencies, should we be implementing more runtime checks for features we are using, when do we consider an affected glibc "old enough" not to worry about? etc). If you take a look through the [glibc bug tracker](https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/describecomponents.cgi?product=glibc) you'll no doubt find plenty of (active) bug reports for standard library code we already using. Obviously not to say we shouldn't try and avoid buggy code where possible.
Two other points:
[Cory mentioned in #21022](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21022#issuecomment-769274179):
> It also seems reasonable to me to worry that boost hits the same underlying glibc bug, and we've just not happened to trigger the right conditions yet.
Moving away from Boost to the standard library also removes the potential for differences related to Boosts configuration. Boost has multiple versions of `shared_mutex`, and what you end up using, and what it's backed by depends on:
* The version of Boost.
* The platform you're building for.
* Which version of `BOOST_THREAD_VERSION` is defined: (2,3,4 or 5) default=2. (see [here](https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_70_0/doc/html/thread/build.html#thread.build.configuration) for some of the differences).
* Is `BOOST_THREAD_V2_SHARED_MUTEX` defined? (not by default). If so, you might get the ["less performant, but more robust"](https://github.com/boostorg/thread/issues/230#issuecomment-475937761) version of `shared_mutex`.
A lot of these factors are eliminated by our use of depends, but users will have varying configurations. It's also not inconceivable to think that a distro, or some package manager might start defining something like `BOOST_THREAD_VERSION=3`. Boost tried to change the default from 2 to 3 at one point.
With this change, we no longer use Boost Thread, so this PR also removes it from depends, the build system, CI etc.
Previous similar PRs were #19183 & #20922. The authors are included in the commits here.
Also related to #21022 - pthread sanity checking.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK 060a2a64d4
vasild:
ACK 060a2a64d4
Tree-SHA512: 572d14d8c9de20bc434511f20d3f431836393ff915b2fe9de5a47a02dca76805ad5c3fc4cceecb4cd43f3ba939a0508178c4e60e62abdbaaa6b3e8db20b75b03
