search

Murmele / Gittyup

Understand your Git history!
https://murmele.github.io/Gittyup
MIT License
1.37k stars 107 forks source link

SSL error: unknown error #646

Open fairking opened 8 months ago

fairking commented 8 months ago

Hi everyone,

I am trying to clone my repo from my own dev server and I am getting an error:

SSL error: unknown error

I was using login and password of my gitea user. Gitea v1.20.4 System: Fedora 38 (Linux 6.5.6-200.fc38.x86_64)

image

The ssl certificate is Let's encrypt.

image

image

I use other git client on another my pc (windows) and it's working fine.

fairking commented 8 months ago

BTW. If I use git clone https://mydomain.com:3001/user/project.git on the same machine (where gittyup installed) it asks for user name and password and clones the repo without any issues.

The command git config -l --show-origin returns

file:/home/user/.gitconfig       http.sslversion=sslv3

looks like something gittyup is broken :-(

Murmele commented 8 months ago

@exactly-one-kas may know something about.

Murmele commented 7 months ago

Can you try the artifacts of the qt6 build? https://github.com/Murmele/Gittyup/pull/429 There I updated the openssl version

fairking commented 7 months ago

Can you try the artifacts of the qt6 build? #429 There I updated the openssl version

Sorry, I am struggling with the build, it's over-complicated to me. I could try some beta/rc *.rpm instead.

AHSauge commented 1 month ago

I must say I've yet to hit the same problem myself, but compiling on Fedora 38 the tests pass without any issue on that qt6 branch, were as I hit trouble running the master branch (very similar error to #546 I might add). I strongly suspect that these warnings I get on the master branch, but not on the qt6 branch, have something to do with that

/usr/bin/ld: warning: libssl.so.3, needed by /usr/lib64/libQt5Network.so.5.15.13, may conflict with libssl.so.1.1
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libcrypto.so.3, needed by /usr/lib64/libQt5Network.so.5.15.13, may conflict with libcrypto.so.1.1

I'm not sure how it's all connected, but I suspect this is an openssl 1.1 vs. 3.0 clash