💬 laanwj commented on pull request "depends: Fix build of Qt for 32-bit platforms with recent glibc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29985#discussion_r1582109676)
whoops, should probably do s/gzip/zlib here too

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "depends: Fix build of Qt for 32-bit platforms with recent glibc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29985#issuecomment-2081463967)
Force-pushed because somehow had gzip and zlib names mixed up in my head, only the branch name remains 😄

💬 theStack commented on pull request "refactor: remove remaining unused code from cpp-subprocess":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29961#discussion_r1582144839)
Oh sorry, I missed that. Force-pushed now with a commit where only `Popen::kill()` is removed (and `Popen::poll()` is kept as-is).

💬 sipa commented on pull request "net: Replace ifname check with IFF_LOOPBACK in Discover":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29984#issuecomment-2081471875)
utACK a68fed111be393ddbbcd7451f78bc63601253ee0

📝 sdaftuar opened a pull request: "test: Don't rely on incentive incompatible replacement in mempool_accept_v3.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29986)
In the sibling eviction test, we're currently testing that a transaction with ancestor feerate of 179 is able to replace a transaction with ancestor feerate of 300, due to a shortcoming in our current RBF rules.

In preparation for fixing our RBF rules to not allow such replacements, fix the test by bumping the fee of the replacement to be a bit higher.

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "test: Don't rely on incentive incompatible replacement in mempool_accept_v3.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29986#issuecomment-2081474305)
@glozow @instagibbs This was something I noticed when rebasing #28676.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "guix: build with glibc 2.31"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29987)
Set minimum required glibc to 2.31.
The glibc 2.31 branch is still maintained: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.31/master.

Remove the stack-protector check from test-security-check, as the test
no-longer fails, and given the control we have of the end, the actual
security-check test seems sufficient (this might also be applied to some
of the other checks).

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "guix: build with glibc 2.31":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29987#issuecomment-2081481022)
Concept ACK.

For context: this is the version in Ubuntu 20.04 LTS: https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=libc6&searchon=names&suite=focal&section=all

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor: remove remaining unused code from cpp-subprocess":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29961#discussion_r1582161938)
Ok, strange, I guess I was looking at an outdated version of the code or something.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor: remove remaining unused code from cpp-subprocess":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29961#issuecomment-2081495482)
> ACK [908c51f](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/908c51fe4afeba0af500c6275027b1afa1b3bd19). It is compatible with #29961.

@hebasto #29961 is this PR here, did you mean #29868 there?

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor: remove remaining unused code from cpp-subprocess":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29961#issuecomment-2081495688)
Code review ACK 8b52e7f628304e83b0e36fd97e617de0f71c5a62

💬 eval-exec commented on issue "qa: Support git worktrees when running the linters locally via Docker":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29972#issuecomment-2081499778)
I can't reproduce that error:
```
bitcoin on  exec/worktree via 🐍 v3.8.18 via ❄️ impure (btc)
❯ DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1 docker build -t bitcoin-linter --file "./ci/lint_imagefile" ./ && docker run --rm -v $(pwd):/bitcoin -it bitcoin-linter
[+] Building 3.4s (12/12) FINISHED docker:default
=> [internal] load build definition from lint_imagefile
...

📝 Apetree100122 opened a pull request: "Update bitcoin_config.h.in"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29988)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: *** Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately. GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improve cove
...

✅ laanwj closed a pull request: "Update bitcoin_config.h.in"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29988)

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "depends: Fix build of Qt for 32-bit platforms with recent glibc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29985#pullrequestreview-2027140813)
My Guix builds:
```
x86_64
1a25e6c850955fe222604b29409f46da89d1dd987b9e4ecb1e0c584638d0b306 guix-build-2fb0092a9cc5/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
1616ef50b4eb68240353fea259ceb9dbe387047389b56ea97049121d00cccb7a guix-build-2fb0092a9cc5/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-2fb0092a9cc5-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
27815c05ea9efb38297e9df97a042876063f83bec3f9054a4170b406b80b31a9 guix-build-2fb0092a9cc5/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-2fb0092a9cc5-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
6a5172a7
...

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "depends: Fix build of Qt for 32-bit platforms with recent glibc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29985#pullrequestreview-2027141942)
ACK 2fb0092a9cc506d567523835e6a198032c581105.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: Fix build of Qt for 32-bit platforms with recent glibc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29985#discussion_r1582197430)
nit:
```suggestion
@@ -26,9 +26,8 @@
```
to avoid:
```
patching file qtbase/src/3rdparty/zlib/src/gzguts.h
Hunk #1 succeeded at 26 (offset 19 lines).
```

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: build with glibc 2.31":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29987#issuecomment-2081514112)
Concept ACK.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "index: Check all necessary block data is available before starting to sync":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29770#issuecomment-2081534985)
@stickies-v Thanks for the feedback, I will leave this unaddressed for now until #29668 has been merged. Then I will get back to it when I take this out of draft mode.

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "doc: i2p: improve `-i2pacceptincoming` mention":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29813#issuecomment-2081535471)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29813/commits/2179e2c3209a41c1419f1f5ed6270a0dad68b50d

Checked (without testing) that behavior is as described.
In `CConman::ConnectNode`, unless `i2pacceptincoming == 0`, a persistent I2P session (`m_transient == false`) with a private key stored on disk is used. Otherwise, we create a transient I2P session (`m_transient == true`).

Relevant [section](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/3aaf7328eb656b642e5f0f74f3e4d51645a1d0ab/src/i2p.cpp#L
...