On Thu, 2021-07-29 at 12:59 +0000, Khem Raj wrote: > > Latest upgrade to 249 broke a working build on musl, this is incremental > fix to exisiting patches adapted to 249 release > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <[email protected]> > Cc: Luca Boccassi <[email protected]> > --- > ...002-don-t-use-glibc-specific-qsort_r.patch | 24 +-- > ...missing.h-check-for-missing-strndupa.patch | 173 +++++++++--------- > .../0006-Include-netinet-if_ether.h.patch | 147 ++++++++------- > ...OB_BRACE-and-GLOB_ALTDIRFUNC-is-not-.patch | 20 +- > ...T_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW-flag-to-faccessat.patch | 14 +- > ...-not-disable-buffer-in-writing-files.patch | 143 ++++++--------- > .../systemd/0026-Handle-missing-gshadow.patch | 18 +- > 7 files changed, 247 insertions(+), 292 deletions(-) >
Having a look at the patches, a few comments: - 0001-test-parse-argument-Include-signal.h.patch was merged upstream, but never removed, I think because it was refactored so it applies cleanly and doesn't raise errors? - 0005-src-basic-missing.h-check-for-missing-strndupa.patch this is massive and will keep growing and breaking the build, wouldn't it be better to just implement strndupa in musl? Even out-of-tree it sounds like it would be easier to maintain than this - 0006-Include-netinet-if_ether.h.patch sounds like it should be doable in a way that is compatible with both glibc and musl, and thus could be upstreamed? - 0010-Use-uintmax_t-for-handling-rlim_t.patch can be upstreamed but needs to be reworked slightly as explained in https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/7199#issuecomment-358268647 which seems worth doing to me - 0012-don-t-pass-AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW-flag-to-faccessat.patch I find quite worrying, as it fundamentally changes access patterns, some of which are done for security reasons. At best, this will cause completely different runtime behaviours for the same filesystem depending on the libc implementation, which doesn't sound great? - 0016-Hide-__start_BUS_ERROR_MAP-and-__stop_BUS_ERROR_MAP.patch sounds like a genuine bug, have you tried upstreaming it? - 0019-Handle-missing-LOCK_EX.patch I see no problem upstreaming this - 0028-missing_syscall.h-Define-MIPS-ABI-defines-for-musl.patch should also be fine to upstream I think, in src/basic/missing_syscall_def.h -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#154247): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/154247 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/84490599/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
