From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 23:21:10 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2016-03-13 In-Reply-To: <20160314120054.45e1983c@free-electrons.com> References: <20160314073023.29F5C1012C1@stock.ovh.net> <56E69644.4030002@lucaceresoli.net> <20160314120054.45e1983c@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <56E73956.5070806@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas, On 14/03/2016 12:00, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Luca, > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:45:24 +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 14/03/2016 08:30, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> [...] >>> arm | libpjsip-2.4.5 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/e5c85272b5561549dfc478264ee6507bb9ad8c9f/ >> >> Musl toolchain, and as Thomas already pointed out libpjsip does not >> build with it. >> >> Patches to fix this issue are almost ready here. But it might need a >> little extra time before I can send them to Buildroot because the pjsip >> project requires Copyright Assignment, with associated paperwork... :| > > Two options: > > 1/ You submit your patches to Buildroot before doing the copyright > assignment. From a Buildroot point of view, it is sufficient if > your patches are licensed under the publicly available license of > pjsip. Of course, if they later get merged upstream after doing the > copyright assignment, it is better, but that doesn't prevent from > submitting the patches to Buildroot IMO. > > 2/ You submit a patch that disables pjsip on musl for the moment, and > you can re-enable it once the patches have been accepted upstream. Thanks for sharing your opinion. In this specific case, since there is a fix I prefer to apply it rather than disabling the package. I just sent a patch to fix it. -- Luca