From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:31:05 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Open bug overview: help wanted! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140716093105.79a705aa@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas De Schampheleire, On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 20:50:42 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=7208 critical > unassigned at buildroot.uclibc.org Glibc C++ aplications crash if they > use exceptions. > This problem is caused by a patch adding musl support. How to proceed? A solution was suggested by Rich Felker in the bug report. My plan is to work on implementing this solution, but I was hoping to fix bug #7250 first, which also affects the toolchain. > https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=7124 major > thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com Use BR toolchain externally > results a non-bootable root filesystem > ThomasP: you assigned this bug to yourself, have you been able to > reproduce/analyze this already? Not yet. > https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=7250 minor > thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com Cannot build with -std=c++11 > ThomasP attached a patch to the bug report, and the submitter > confirmed it to work. So I guess this patch can be submitted to the > list now? The patch I submitted was only for gcc 4.8.x, but I've since then written patches for gcc 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9, I only lack the same patch for the ARC special version. I'll work on this, but probably not this week, since I'm taking care of merging patches this week. > https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=6944 minor > unassigned at buildroot.uclibc.org building toolchain for sh4 fails > ThomasP: you discussed this patch with the submitter, but there is no > final conclusion yet. How to proceed? I don't know. I don't know SuperH stuff, and it builds a multilib toolchain by default, causing some issues. Needs investigation/thoughts to see what could be the solution. Problem is that I don't personally care much about SuperH, and we don't have a lot of contributors/users using this architecture, so it reduces quite a bit the incentive to work on such issues. > https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=4790 normal jacmet at uclibc.org > Running udhcpc on a system with NFS root kills NFS > We discussed this patch in the context of the last release cycle. I > believe the end conclusion is that we shouldn't try to be too smart > with respect to the init scripts/configuration files and instead > document the gotchas in the manual. Any takers? I agree with the solution. > 6878 minor abrodkin at synopsys.com dmraid: disabled on ARC > 7088 minor sonic.zhang at analog.com elfutils on Blackfin doesn't build > 6872 minor unassigned at buildroot.uclibc.org gpsd: disabled on microblaze These ones are mainly here to remind the respective architecture maintainers that they should do something about these packages: we have temporarily solve the situation by excluding those packages using "depends on !", but ultimately there's no technical reason for those packages to be disabled on those architectures. So to not forget, I submitted those bug reports instead. Here the intent is to distinguish packages that for some technical reason do not support a given architecture (such as webkit, or jamvm, that really do have some architecture-specific code) from packages currently broken on a given architecture, but which could potentially work. That being said, while I'm pretty sure the dmraid issue on ARC will be solved at some point, I have less hopes for the elfutils on Blackfin and gpsd on Microblaze issues, since we don't receive much help to maintain those two architectures in Buildroot... > 7136 normal thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com ecryptfs-utils needs > gettext to run when glibc/eglibc is used Patches already sent. People were a little bit worried about the consequences of the patches, but I don't think there's any other solution, so I'd appreciate some review on the patches. > 7142 normal thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com ecryptfs needs getent to run Yeah, I remember this issue, it was debugged on IRC, and the bug report is a reminder to do some work to fix it properly. Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com