Re: [PATCH] ash: avoid GLIBC'ism %m

2017-07-18 Thread Jody Bruchon
On 2017-07-18 9:15 PM, Kang-Che Sung wrote: On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Markus Gothe wrote: Actually last time I checked ‘%m’ is POSIX contrary to glibc’s deprecated '%a’. However, I agree that it should not be used since at least uClibc can be built without

Re: [PATCH] ash: avoid GLIBC'ism %m

2017-07-18 Thread Kang-Che Sung
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Markus Gothe wrote: > Actually last time I checked ‘%m’ is POSIX contrary to glibc’s deprecated > '%a’. > However, I agree that it should not be used since at least uClibc can be > built without support for it. How come %m is POSIX

Re: [PATCH 2/2] arch/{sparc,sparc64}/Makefile: define ARCH_FPIC

2017-07-18 Thread Thomas Petazzoni
Hello, On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 14:44:21 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > Can you investigate this further? > LIBBUSYBOX build results in entire busybox code being put into a library. > > nm -D libbusybox.so.1.28.0.git > > shows that there are only defined entry points to each applet's main(): > >

1.27.1 is released

2017-07-18 Thread Denys Vlasenko
18 July 2017 -- BusyBox 1.27.1 (stable) BusyBox 1.27.1. (git, patches, how to add a patch) Bug fix release. 1.27.1 has fixes for uuencode (allow space instead of "`" as padding char), dd (fixed status=none), setpriv (option parsing should not eat options in PROG ARGS), fix for "applet (for

Re: [PATCH] ash: avoid GLIBC'ism %m

2017-07-18 Thread Markus Gothe
Actually last time I checked ‘%m’ is POSIX contrary to glibc’s deprecated '%a’. However, I agree that it should not be used since at least uClibc can be built without support for it. BR, Markus - The panama-hat hacker On 17 Jul 2017, at 04:01 , Kang-Che Sung wrote: > I

Re: [PATCH] printf: fix format string sanity check

2017-07-18 Thread Denys Vlasenko
Applied, thanks! On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Ron Yorston wrote: > One of the tests for printf checks for an invalid bare '%' in the > format string: > >$ busybox printf '%' a b c >printf: %: invalid format > > On x86_64 a slightly different test doesn't work

[PATCH] printf: fix format string sanity check

2017-07-18 Thread Ron Yorston
One of the tests for printf checks for an invalid bare '%' in the format string: $ busybox printf '%' a b c printf: %: invalid format On x86_64 a slightly different test doesn't work correctly: $ busybox printf '%' d e f printf: invalid number 'd' printf: invalid number 'e'