Skip to content

iperf3: fix failing build of libiperf3 with ssl variant#22628

Open
jonasjelonek wants to merge 1 commit intoopenwrt:masterfrom
jonasjelonek:iperf3-fix-A
Open

iperf3: fix failing build of libiperf3 with ssl variant#22628
jonasjelonek wants to merge 1 commit intoopenwrt:masterfrom
jonasjelonek:iperf3-fix-A

Conversation

@jonasjelonek
Copy link
Contributor

@jonasjelonek jonasjelonek commented Nov 8, 2023

Maintainer: @nbd168
Compile tested: aarch64_cortex-a53 (BananaPi R64) + x86/64 (APU2C4), OpenWrt snapshot
Run tested: aarch64_cortex-a53 (BananaPi R64) + x86/64 (APU2C4), OpenWrt snapshot

Description:
In my PR #22516 and in the follow-up issue #22566 I opened, I already described the issue itself.
TLDR: Building libiperf3 fails when iperf3-ssl is selected because iperf3-ssl adds --disable-shared to CONFIGURE_ARGS which prevents generating libiperf.so.* file, which is obviously necessary for libiperf3.

My proposed changes fix the issue and in addition also allow to have a shared libiperf3 with SSL support, which afaik was not possible before. Instead of having separate package variants for with/without SSL support, let's just do that with a config option that can be chosen. Any objections to this?

@jonasjelonek jonasjelonek changed the title iperf3, iperf3-mt: fix failing build of libiperf3 with ssl variants [RFC] iperf3, iperf3-mt: fix failing build of libiperf3 with ssl variants Nov 16, 2023
@jonasjelonek
Copy link
Contributor Author

@BKPepe do you maybe have comments on this?

@jonasjelonek jonasjelonek changed the title [RFC] iperf3, iperf3-mt: fix failing build of libiperf3 with ssl variants [RFC] iperf3: fix failing build of libiperf3 with ssl variant Dec 2, 2023
@GeorgeSapkin
Copy link
Member

@jonasjelonek still relevant?

@jonasjelonek
Copy link
Contributor Author

@GeorgeSapkin yes, the issue persists. Selecting iperf3-ssl and libiperf3 doesn't work as iperf3-ssl adds --disable-shared which causes libiperf.so.* to be missing.

@GeorgeSapkin
Copy link
Member

OK, well this is marked as draft for a while now. Are you planning on finishing this?

@jonasjelonek jonasjelonek changed the title [RFC] iperf3: fix failing build of libiperf3 with ssl variant iperf3: fix failing build of libiperf3 with ssl variant Dec 16, 2025
@jonasjelonek jonasjelonek marked this pull request as ready for review December 16, 2025 21:26
@jonasjelonek
Copy link
Contributor Author

Luckily, there's not really something to finish. It still applies cleanly and fixes the issue. Not sure though if there are any objections against how I fixed this.

@GeorgeSapkin
Copy link
Member

You should bump the PKG_RELEASE.

This handles the SSL support for iperf3 as a configuration option rather
than as a separate package (variant).
This way an issue is fixed where libiperf3 fails to build when the ssl
variant of iperf3 is selected. The build failure is caused by the
'--disable-shared' that is added to CONFIGURE_ARGS when selecting the
ssl variant. This prevents the build from generating the libiperf.so.*.

Besides fixing the issue, this also allows to have shared libiperf3 with
SSL support and avoids the need to statically compile iperf3-ssl.

Signed-off-by: Jonas Jelonek <jelonek.jonas@gmail.com>
@GeorgeSapkin
Copy link
Member

GeorgeSapkin commented Dec 19, 2025

I'm not using iperf3 so somebody else will need to check this. But after taking a brief look, does this change imply that if PACKAGE_iperf3_SSL_SUPPORT=n by default, SSL variant/support won't be able to be installed by the user? E.g. when building through the firmware selector or the image builder?

@jonasjelonek
Copy link
Contributor Author

does this change imply that if PACKAGE_iperf3_SSL_SUPPORT=n by default, SSL variant/support won't be able to be installed by the user? E.g. when building through the firmware selector or the image builder?

If there's no way to set such config operation when using firmware selector/image builder, then yes. One of the reason I had this as an RFC/draft at first.

I'm also fine to drop this completely. I had this PR and even an issue some time ago with barely any replies. So it seems, no one actually came across it aka no need to fix something.

Copy link

@harrydleung harrydleung left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've tested this and it works well on 24.10.5. I think this should be backported to the openwrt-24.10 branch as well.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants