Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added more troubleshooting instructions #4236

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 23, 2018

Conversation

saturnism
Copy link
Contributor

For #4103

Copy link
Contributor

@carl-mastrangelo carl-mastrangelo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Two nits, but LGTM

SECURITY.md Outdated

### Netty
If you aren't using gRPC on Android devices, you are most likely using `grpc-netty` transport.

If you are developing for Android and have a dependency on `grpc-netty`, you should remove it as `grpc-netty` is unsupported on Android. Use `grpc-okhttp` instead.

If you are on a 32-bit operating system, or not on an [Transport Security supported platform](#transport-security-tls), you should use Jetty ALPN (and beware of potential issues), or you'll need to build your own 32-bit version of `netty-tcnative`.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/on an/on a/

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

fixed


If you are running inside of an embedded Tomcat runtime (e.g., Spring Boot), then some versions of `netty-tcnative-boringssl-static` will have conflicts and won't work. You must use gRPC 1.4.0 or later.

If you are using `musl` libc (e.g., with Alpine Linux), then `netty-tcnative-boringssl-static` won't work. There are several alternatives:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should this be musl or muslc as above?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

oops, i think i'll use the same musl libc wording. good catch!

@ejona86
Copy link
Member

ejona86 commented Mar 20, 2018

@saturnism, does this mean you want this change over #4185?

@saturnism
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ejona86 oops i didn't realize there was already a PR for review! my bad.

I feel both content can be merged into the same guide.

@ejona86
Copy link
Member

ejona86 commented Mar 23, 2018

test: let's see if a comment let's kokoro notice this PR needs running

@ejona86 ejona86 added the kokoro:run Add this label to a PR to tell Kokoro the code is safe and tests can be run label Mar 23, 2018
@kokoro-team kokoro-team removed the kokoro:run Add this label to a PR to tell Kokoro the code is safe and tests can be run label Mar 23, 2018
@ejona86 ejona86 added the kokoro:run Add this label to a PR to tell Kokoro the code is safe and tests can be run label Mar 23, 2018
@kokoro-team kokoro-team removed the kokoro:run Add this label to a PR to tell Kokoro the code is safe and tests can be run label Mar 23, 2018
@ejona86 ejona86 merged commit ae42d66 into grpc:master Mar 23, 2018
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 18, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants