Fix build error with grpc_tools.protoc by enabling experimental_editions

[UffeJakobsen]

Fix build error with grpc_tools.protoc by enabling experimental_editions

Seen on ArchLinux

protoc -I. ui.proto --go_out=../daemon/ui/protocol/ --go-grpc_out=../daemon/ui/protocol/ --go_opt=paths=source_relative --go-grpc_opt=paths=source_relative
python3 -m grpc_tools.protoc -I. --python_out=../ui/opensnitch/proto/ --grpc_python_out=../ui/opensnitch/proto/ ui.proto
WARNING: All log messages before absl::InitializeLog() is called are written to STDERR
E0000 00:00:1757449340.684078   51069 command_line_interface.cc:1557] Built-in generator --grpc_python_out specifies a maximum edition 2023 which is not the protoc maximum 2024.
make: *** [Makefile:7: ../ui/opensnitch/ui_pb2.py] Error 1

More info #1429

[gustavo-iniguez-goya]

hi @UffeJakobsen ,

Thank you for looking into this issue. The problem I see is that on Debian (and by extension other distros) , python3-grpcio is still 1.51.x, and --experimental_editions option doesn't exist.
Other distros could patch the Makefile to remove that option, or maybe we could add an option to the Makefile, to compile the protobuffer with this option.

Something like:

legacy_proto_py: ui.proto
	python3 -m grpc_tools.protoc --experimental_editions -I. --python_out=../ui/opensnitch/proto/ --grpc_python_out=../ui/opensnitch/proto/ ui.proto

../ui/opensnitch/ui_pb2.py: ui.proto
	python3 -m grpc_tools.protoc --experimental_editions -I. --python_out=../ui/opensnitch/proto/ --grpc_python_out=../ui/opensnitch/proto/ ui.proto

Or maybe we could detect the version , and use the parameter depending on it.

[UffeJakobsen]

Hi @gustavo-iniguez-goya,

Thanks for your answer.

As for detecting versions of grpc... I'm not that deep into grpc to know what to look/detect for...

I'll be happy for any solution - even a Makefile option will be fine with me.

Right now the ArchLinux AUR builds (aka PKGBUILD's) patch the Makefile to make it work - it would be really nice to get rid of that patch.

Do you have any preference ?

[ryan-steed-usa]

@UffeJakobsen I've made an attempt with #1466. Feel free to integrate it in your PR or not, I don't care whether it's merged.

[UffeJakobsen]

@UffeJakobsen I've made an attempt with #1466. Feel free to integrate it in your PR or not, I don't care whether it's merged.

@ryan-steed-usa Thanks your impl seems to be just fine - I think that we should use your PR and close this one :-)

[UffeJakobsen]

Closing - please use PR #1466