GH-36707: [C++] Use ARROW_PACKAGE_PREFIX for OPENSSL_ROOT_DIR too #36710
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
|
github-actions
bot
added
Component: C++
awaiting committer review
is fixed by this. Others will be fixed by r-windows/rtools-packages#285 . |
|
@github-actions crossbow submit -g nightly-tests -g nightly-packaging -g nightly-release |
|
Revision: 7a0a398 Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-3da5b12a61
|
paleolimbot
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2023
github-actions
bot
added
awaiting merge
raulcd
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2023
raulcd
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2023
…6710) ### Rationale for this change In general, a CMake package uses `${PACKAGE}_ROOT` variable to detect `PACKAGE` but `FindOpenSSL.cmake` uses `OPENSSL_ROOT_DIR` not `OpenSSL_ROOT`. ### What changes are included in this PR? Set `OPENSSL_ROOT_DIR` explicitly. ### Are these changes tested? Yes. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes. * Closes: #36707 Authored-by: Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com> Signed-off-by: Raúl Cumplido <raulcumplido@gmail.com>
chelseajonesr
pushed a commit
to chelseajonesr/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2023
…oo (apache#36710) ### Rationale for this change In general, a CMake package uses `${PACKAGE}_ROOT` variable to detect `PACKAGE` but `FindOpenSSL.cmake` uses `OPENSSL_ROOT_DIR` not `OpenSSL_ROOT`. ### What changes are included in this PR? Set `OPENSSL_ROOT_DIR` explicitly. ### Are these changes tested? Yes. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes. * Closes: apache#36707 Authored-by: Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com> Signed-off-by: Raúl Cumplido <raulcumplido@gmail.com>
|
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit fb7fb0d. There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉 The full Conbench report has more details. |
|
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit fb7fb0d. There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉 The full Conbench report has more details. |
R-JunmingChen
pushed a commit
to R-JunmingChen/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 20, 2023
…oo (apache#36710) ### Rationale for this change In general, a CMake package uses `${PACKAGE}_ROOT` variable to detect `PACKAGE` but `FindOpenSSL.cmake` uses `OPENSSL_ROOT_DIR` not `OpenSSL_ROOT`. ### What changes are included in this PR? Set `OPENSSL_ROOT_DIR` explicitly. ### Are these changes tested? Yes. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes. * Closes: apache#36707 Authored-by: Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com> Signed-off-by: Raúl Cumplido <raulcumplido@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rationale for this change
In general, a CMake package uses
${PACKAGE}_ROOTvariable to detectPACKAGEbutFindOpenSSL.cmakeusesOPENSSL_ROOT_DIRnotOpenSSL_ROOT.What changes are included in this PR?
Set
OPENSSL_ROOT_DIRexplicitly.Are these changes tested?
Yes.
Are there any user-facing changes?
Yes.