Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/pistache: enable on uClibc

[Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>]

Hello,

On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 18:29:06 +0200
"Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> wrote:

> As I understand, this patch is not really upstreamable, or at least not
> in this state.
> 
> However, this means we will have to carry over and over, because
> existing uclibc-based toolchains will still be usad in the future, even
> when newer uclibc-ng contains the new definitions, so we can't drop this
> patch because it may always needed when using external toolchains...

No, we will not have to carry it over and over. Regarding uClibc-ng, we
require using a reasonably recent version of uClibc-ng. So my plan
would be to keep this hack for a few months, until at least the Bootlin
uClibc toolchains are rebuilt with a recent enough uClibc-ng, and then
drop this hack.

So no, the goal is not to keep this hack patch forever.

What I'm proposing to do for pistache is exactly the same as I did in
commit fa4dba4aa202de20e3821eace5513aad81c23275, for openswan. Waldemar
was simply proposing to re-enable openswan for uClibc, because
uClibc-ng 1.0.41 has the necessary definitions. But in the immediate
term, that would have caused build break with Bootlin toolchains. So
until they are re-generated, I have added a hack patch that avoids the
uClibc build issue entirely, also with the goal of dropping the patch
when the toolchains are rebuilt.

> So, I think a version that is upstreamable would be nice...

I'm not sure it's worth the effort to introduce more complexity
upstream for this missing definition in uClibc. We should just fix it
in uClibc (I have already reported the issue), and that's it.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot