There is an open issue upstream: https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/-/issues/193
I'm fine if this is deferred until upstream sorts it out. Alex On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 23:47, Richard Purdie < [email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 2021-02-28 at 11:10 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > On 2/28/21 7:36 AM, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > .../procps/0001-w.c-correct-musl-builds.patch | 44 > +++++++++++++++++++ > > > ...02-proc-escape.c-add-missing-include.patch | 23 ++++++++++ > > > .../{procps_3.3.16.bb => procps_3.3.17.bb} | 4 +- > > > 3 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > create mode 100644 > meta/recipes-extended/procps/procps/0001-w.c-correct-musl-builds.patch > > > create mode 100644 > meta/recipes-extended/procps/procps/0002-proc-escape.c-add-missing-include.patch > > > rename meta/recipes-extended/procps/{procps_3.3.16.bb => > procps_3.3.17.bb} (94%) > > > > > > diff --git > a/meta/recipes-extended/procps/procps/0001-w.c-correct-musl-builds.patch > b/meta/recipes-extended/procps/procps/0001-w.c-correct-musl-builds.patch > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000000..c92ad28e4f > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ > b/meta/recipes-extended/procps/procps/0001-w.c-correct-musl-builds.patch > > > @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ > > > +From 22f8d25567b8d64bdbab0fb0b4915b4362561d9b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > +From: Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> > > > +Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 21:14:31 +0000 > > > +Subject: [PATCH] w.c: correct musl builds > > > + > > > +No need to redefine UT_ stuff to something that does not exist. > > > + > > > +UT_ is already provided in musl but via utmp.h header, so include > > > +it always. > > > + > > > +Upstream-Status: Submitted [ > https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/-/merge_requests/126] > > > +Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> > > > +--- > > > + w.c | 9 +-------- > > > + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > + > > > +diff --git a/w.c b/w.c > > > +index 9d07ac9..d10639b 100644 > > > +--- a/w.c > > > ++++ b/w.c > > > +@@ -57,9 +57,8 @@ > > > + #include <unistd.h> > > > + #ifdef HAVE_UTMPX_H > > > + # include <utmpx.h> > > > +-#else > > > +-# include <utmp.h> > > > + #endif > > > ++#include <utmp.h> > > > > this would mean when utmpx.h is provided ( e.g. ) it will now include > > both, which is a change perhaps to look more into, it might want them to > > be exclusive. > > This one is worrying me a bit as it does seem to change behaviour on glibc. > Was anyone able to look into it further? > > Cheers, > > Richard > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#149158): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/149158 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/80974312/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
