Sebastian Falbesoner

Concept ACK

Concept ACK, happy to re-review after rebase

> nit it might be useful for reviewers to know what PR/PR's the `After the transition from Autotools to CMake` refers to, if you can add to the description Good...

> I wonder if we can get rid of the `HAVE_BUILD_INFO` macro simultaneously or in a follow-up. Sounds reasonable and simple enough (if I didn't miss anything), added a commit...

> Could you rebase this, now that guix builds are reproducible again. Sure, done.

> @theStack > > Could rebase once more please to refresh the CI? Yes, done.

Thanks for the reviews! Added a commit renaming the file build.h to bitcoin-build-info.h, to account for both the namespacing suggestions (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30856#pullrequestreview-2310630029) and the request for a more descriptive name (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30856#discussion_r1764891407)....

> Maybe squash, to avoid changing the file name twice? Makes sense yeah, done.

Thanks for the reviews! I agree that skipping the test is a bad idea, switched to to an explicit error message instead as suggested, also added a log.info with instructions...

Closing this, as a corresponding PR was opened and merged in upstream (see https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1642), i.e. it will be available here once a rebase on v0.7.0 (or later) is done.