💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[27.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32479#issuecomment-2949471500)
Guix Build:
```bash
d178e3421afcc858584bedbda3e3bce85ccc9071aa4fab8b58eda3aad9b4676f guix-build-1d8856dddfcd/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
31064b3b8268e8b8512e120c12d458788a249b733be3578cc73808bfde5a04f4 guix-build-1d8856dddfcd/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-1d8856dddfcd-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
58d34149465cf68e3cf2c3b6b96ba625ec4df4b5aaeccc48597588b83c4e6ed8 guix-build-1d8856dddfcd/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-1d8856dddfcd-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
23b8d8759f407086
...

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: wallet: cover wallet passphrase with a null char":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32675#discussion_r2132344303)
I will leave as-is for now to not invalidate the reivews. Thanks.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: wallet: cover wallet passphrase with a null char":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32675#discussion_r2132345210)
Same. And maybe out of scope, will see.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: wallet: cover wallet passphrase with a null char":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32675#discussion_r2132345397)
Same

📝 josibake opened a pull request: "depends: fix cmake compatibility error for freetype"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32693)
## Problem

While doing a depends build with CMake 4.0.1, I got the following error:

```
Extracting freetype...
/root/bitcoin/depends/sources/freetype-2.11.0.tar.xz: OK
Preprocessing freetype...
Configuring freetype...
CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:100 (cmake_minimum_required):
Compatibility with CMake < 3.5 has been removed from CMake.

Update the VERSION argument <min> value. Or, use the <min>...<max> syntax
to tell CMake that the project requires at least <min> but has be
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: fix multiprocess build on OpenBSD (apply capnp patch, correct SHA256SUM command)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32690#discussion_r2132380254)
> `build_freebsd_SHA256SUM = sha256sum` already outputs the format we need.

```sh
$ freebsd-version
14.2-RELEASE
$ sha256 ~/.cshrc
SHA256 (/home/hebasto/.cshrc) = 523d96d41067f380469d4f3d68b540edb63b127e91a9955fb7f6a01c53545258
```

💬 PeterWrighten commented on pull request "wallet: Allow read-only database access for info and dump commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32685#issuecomment-2949576459)
Review request: @achow101 @furszy @ryanofsky @Sjors

💬 hebasto commented on issue "depends: OpenBSD (aarch64) needs gcc (instruction) for libevent":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32691#issuecomment-2949584140)
> I spun up an equivalent aarch64 VM. I installed `bash gmake gtar` and `cmake` (and `git` to clone the repo). Ran into the same error as with UTM.
>
> So it seems to be an arm thing?

Seems like a bug in CMake's `CMakeDetermineCCompiler` module.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#discussion_r2132394370)
done

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#discussion_r2132394658)
done

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#discussion_r2132395636)
changed to "because" - it was meant to imply a causality between the sentences.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#issuecomment-2949593753)
[fdcdc2c](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/fdcdc2cdeadb5d36076f1b94b54261e22e031354) to [76c835f](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/76c835f77205d04c4206acad1a8a636562c22f79): addressed nits

💬 hebasto commented on issue "depends: OpenBSD (aarch64) needs gcc (instruction) for libevent":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32691#issuecomment-2949596188)
@Sjors

What are outputs of the `printenv` and `which cc` commands on your OpenBSD aarch64?

💬 Sjors commented on issue "depends: OpenBSD (aarch64) needs gcc (instruction) for libevent":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32691#issuecomment-2949608234)
```
_=/usr/bin/printenv
LOGNAME=root
PWD=/root
HOME=/root
SSH_TTY=/dev/ttyp0
MAIL=/var/mail/root
SSH_CLIENT=******** 10013 22
PATH=/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin
TERM=xterm-256color
SHELL=/bin/ksh
SSH_CONNECTION=*************
USER=root
```

```
which cc
/usr/bin/cc
```

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "test: added fuzz coverage for consensus/merkle.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32243#discussion_r2132408562)
Thanks! That makes sense, updated in [95969bc](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32243/commits/95969bc58ae0cd928e536d7cb8541de93e8c7205)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "depends: fix multiprocess build on OpenBSD (apply capnp patch, correct SHA256SUM command)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32690#discussion_r2132409537)
`sha256sum` != `sha256` != `shasum -a 256`

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#pullrequestreview-2904963797)
Code review ACK fdcdc2cdeadb5d36076f1b94b54261e22e031354. Looks good, thanks for many new clarifications! Only changes since last review were switching from a CBlockIndexWorkComparator to a nChainWork comparison, switching from InvalidChainFound to InvalidBlockFound without changing behavior, and improving many comment. I left more suggestions below which are not important and all only about comments.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#discussion_r2132355311)
In commit "validation: in invalidateblock, calculate m_best_header right away" (809413fde6893e60078e02b401a9d98a3e341fc1)

Commit message says "Before, m_best_header would be calculated only after disconnecting multiple blocks" but I'm actually not seeing where this was happening, though I think it must have been happening?

Could help if commit message was clarified (or not if I'm just missing something obvious).

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#discussion_r2132281266)
In commit "validation: in invalidateblock, mark children as invalid right away" (328345d571d9b86af54e915b30183b91d28cab2f)

Would seem more accurate to say this code is marking out-of-chain descendants of the "disconnected block" rather than the "invalidated block" since the invalidated block sounds like the block passed to invalidateblock

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#discussion_r2132302141)
In commit "validation: in invalidateblock, calculate m_best_header right away" (809413fde6893e60078e02b401a9d98a3e341fc1)

Maybe replace "but there may be better ones" with "but there could be a better header, which will be found in the loop below", because current comment seems to imply that the code will not actually find the best header.