From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-f195.google.com (mail-pf1-f195.google.com [209.85.210.195]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759307DF94 for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 21:24:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-f195.google.com with SMTP id u17so7851381pfn.7 for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 14:24:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Rw5XEQTsqLRomGCUMnVfjkfEfefyy8BeYnYK1pmnZn4=; b=koIL+qmSsDiN0GyXXLyOOS0j3ofOUeNSCaWmr+WrIO/wxMK/9geuAoSQEo+dawXYC4 4w4z6koYO8QmYGVCDP2UWSFdgJXwF0fXtc1GdMKy48HVOc4ckdcytvH+KW+LLGt+Qps9 qU07pnncgUdqXn3+EYH7ZMTMkO1Sap3S/ueAjtAa8OQ3iIsIf4+GY9YUIpshTvVPkgPh nZqsUfSPzqCv6TQoIXOgjWARi0miCeUoagiOGj7mxQC9I04oedA6m9LHEf5K/iM+C4so EvjfnGvtaFrb/P7KWa+kQl3jS55iLdX544B+LYo/GW4nynrTW/24m4YcxPl0dBR945le yWpw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Rw5XEQTsqLRomGCUMnVfjkfEfefyy8BeYnYK1pmnZn4=; b=UcmttF63P+Yk/6gBrkERhA9DlYudrFIzoD0I6y04e1/xkgZ6ylwSnq3geTxLayzdHr /tzlUJXhCbfLlN0O8otQ+4CZeXHYenYfzP2fqENUbd9QiEFOqAbr7iHmkQoTFkLEp9DW Iq/AOyrm8JoQCa2Ls6gkQlgSf6bvJkeupywRozrA1UoY4Spy40YFyiV1VhxTUApukcT4 svxvoXYWxrhy8DofUkf8mi8dQH0DgN/98AFe7Cf6QJcWEXCAYq75aO6wS5+XKTL5AevJ F321mxWfZIsnenbf+kQtsp+Nx+0uB3cOcz5ybQWDxKvqRvUGN16k/s/N4QVAtpsjnkRF DtyA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWTUouBjBoYhDJuDVhyD5ayvobUrRqzq99XJCLEBd5esoSUeVc5 HUBnZ4W7NiOyRH59UpxbRW57ewocc6w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxj7qDWdqSBQeAz/Nb7XK4w85gtk3qW2VirqdQF11I7bxuwwE2iRKYAAUv6AcYwWf5Z0tEzLg== X-Received: by 2002:a63:f806:: with SMTP id n6mr77638351pgh.242.1558387490119; Mon, 20 May 2019 14:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local ([2601:646:8500:6bc6:74d7:3fa5:f6a5:ec10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e10sm37931601pfm.137.2019.05.20.14.24.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 May 2019 14:24:49 -0700 (PDT) To: Adrian Bunk References: <20190516074834.3014-1-bunk@stusta.de> <8e01a707-fda6-ba0e-5731-4fdc337b09b3@gmail.com> <20190520211635.GA22230@localhost> From: Khem Raj Organization: HIMVIS LLC Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 14:24:47 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:67.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/67.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190520211635.GA22230@localhost> Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] musl: Add TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY from glibc X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 21:24:49 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/20/19 2:16 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 01:19:38PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >> >> >> On 5/16/19 12:48 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: >>> Patch it into musl instead of patching all users >>> (currently elfutils and next ofono). >> >> this violates musl philosophy, and I would like to stay as close as we can, >> so I would suggest that you propose this patch to upstream musl first and >> get an opinion, if it gets accepted, we can change OE > > "musl philosophy" is that musl does include the GNU extensions Rich Felker > likes, and does not include the GNU extensions Rich Felker dislikes.[1] > > TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY is in the latter category. > I would encourage you to start a discussion. Usually a good reason to accept or reject comes out of discussions. > For TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY it's either patching musl once or patching random > packages all the time, and the patch is not invasive. > No other musl distro is patching musl especially for this case, we can live with that since packages will be patched. Eventually applications will wean away from using it. >> Richard, >> >> Please revert this patch, I know its now in master, but we should wait until >> upstream agrees to apply this, we are trying to extend C library which would >> fall on us eventually forever if upstream does not accept it. > > What is actually the strategy for handling musl changes that will have > to be shipped in OE forever? > > Especially systemd/musl is a combination that will bring an ever-growing > amount of changes that cannot be upstreamed on either side. > > And some of the OE patches to systemd make things compile but are of the > "I wonder if I can get a CVE for that" kind. > > The alternative would be to mark systemd as incompatible with musl, > which might be the sustainable thing to do. > > cu > Adrian > > [1] There seem to be sound technical reasons behind what he likes, > but this doesn't help when a distribution wants to get existing > software building with musl. >