Hi Alex, - what is achieved by moving it to core is improving no-gplv3.inc for users who are not using gplv3 and still want full coreutils syntax support. It will also make it possible to add it to poky-altcfg.conf, and generally make it easier to consume without needing meta-openembedded.
- what specifically makes this component mature enough is: - I've added the recipe to meta-openembedded in July 2022 and it has been continuously tested and improved since (e.g. I fixed the musl support upstream, the cross-compilation of stdbuf upstream, some buildpath issue) - its adoption in Ubuntu 26.04 as default coreutils implementation and the resulting large-scale usage and bug-fixing - its availability in Windows as "Coreutils for Windows" starting in June 2026 as a package maintained by Microsoft, and the resulting large-scale usage and bug-fixing - its massive adoption in various distros and package-managers (see https://uutils.org/users/ ) - its >95% pass-rate of the GNU testing suite in release 0.0.12 (some tests are still skipped) - anecdotally, my own usage in production on embedded devices for several years without issues (on arm and qemu-arm64) - "should we make uutils-coreutils the default choice, or maybe the only choice?" -> maybe in several years when uutils-coreutils has matured even more and has 100% test coverage of the GNU test suite? At the moment I think the safest choice on critical devices is still GNU coreutils, so I wouldn't remove or make rust coreutils the default or only choice. Also rust binaries are bigger than C binaries so there is some tradeoff involved. GNU coreutils 9.12 main package is 10.3MB big in my test build, compared to 13.6MB for the uutils-coreutils 0.0.12 main package (uutils-coreutils uses a multi-binary executable to save space, GNU coreutils doesn't). - "Does it work as a provider of coreutils-native and is it compatible with pseudo?" - the recipe uutils-coreutils-native compiles, but it's not compatible with pseudo because of differences in syscalls, and it's not suitable as a replacement for coreutils-native at the moment. I'll try to make it work with pseudo in the future, but I think almost all users consume it as a target recipe and that's where it provides most value. - "Does it pass the full autobuilder matrix when selected as coreutils provider? Should we add that test to the autobuilder?" -> it should, but I've not tested the full matrix of the autobuilder. I would like to add the recipe to poky-altcfg.conf, and as far as I understand this would add it to the autobuilder as side-effect. I am also working on adding ptest support for the recipe and can send this if necessary for the acceptance to oe-core. Étienne On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 3:04 PM Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 10 Oct 2026 at 13:30, Etienne Cordonnier via > lists.openembedded.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.openembedded.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=ncDTmphkJTvjIDPh0hpF_4vCHvabgGkICC2epckfdiw&r=AhkbNonVuMIGRfPx_Qj9TsRih1DULJTKUkSGa66m67E&m=Pf9ypvX_MT4dU4cYC3brv9jpglRcRrrz1luHXObxYfW6J0oO8XAW6KnUoiQHzUES&s=QSmPEv1BkubeZVNksJqkHkppRkyy-Bac7QdkZuoYqaA&e=> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> uutils-coreutils, the Rust reimplementation of GNU coreutils, is mature >> enough for production use, so move the recipe from meta-oe to oe-core. >> It provides and rprovides coreutils, and is excluded from world unless >> selected as the coreutils provider. >> > > This needs a bit more justification. What is achieved by moving it to > core? What specifically makes this component mature enough? What tests were > performed with it? Does it pass the full autobuilder matrix when selected > as coreutiuls provider? Should we add that test to the autobuilder? Should > we make uutils-coreutils the default choice, or maybe the only choice? Does > it work as a provider of coreutils-native, and is it compatible with pseudo? > > Adding things to core has a pretty high bar, and the above commit message > does not meet it. > > Alex >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#247687): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/247687 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/121685421/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
