[Buildroot] Rework musl fix patches

[Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>]

Hello Bernd,

Your effort to fix musl build issues of a large number of packages is
very very appreciated. Your latest submissions on the matter have been
very good, with detailed descriptions, Git formatted patches and
submission of the resulting fixes to the respective upstream projects.

However, a number of your older patches were still pending in
patchwork, and do not comply with those requirements. Most of them
simply borrow a patch from Alpine Linux, OpenEmbedded or OpenWRT, even
when the patch fixes tons of unrelated things and the explanations are
poor. Buildroot has higher requirements than Alpine Linux, OE or
OpenWRT in terms of patch quality and upstream submission.

Would it be possible to rework those patches, to make sure that:

 - For a given package, each musl issue gets fixed by a separate patch
   in package/<pkg>/.

 - Those patches should not be just "fix musl build", but instead a
   real explanation of what the patch is doing, and how it is not a
   fix that is musl specific, but a general fix (general for standard
   conformance, or missing header inclusion, etc.). A detailed
   description for each patch is needed.

 - Those patches should be formatted with Git when the upstream
   project uses Git.

 - When the upstream project is active, those patches should be
   submitted upstream.

Here are a few examples of problematic patches:

 * package/pppd: fix musl build

   A single patch that fixes tons of different issues, with no
   explanation, and code being commented out instead of removed.

 * package/monit: Fix musl build

   No explanation why setting GLOB_ONLYDIR to 0 is safe. Yes,
   GLOB_ONLYDIR is an optimization, but the monit code doesn't check
   if the results are directories. It seems to be safe nonetheless
   because the glob being tested is /proc/[0-9]*, which will probably
   only return directories. All those assumptions should be
   explained. Right now, the reviewers of your patches have to do a
   significant investigation work to verify if the patch is correct or
   not.

Consequently, I have marked the following musl fixes from you as
Changes Requested:

    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/576240/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/573519/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/573517/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572316/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572303/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572304/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572245/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572242/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572241/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572240/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572210/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572208/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572204/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572200/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572196/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572195/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572192/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572189/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572183/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572156/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572154/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572127/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572125/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572109/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572102/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572101/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572099/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/572096/

If you could find the time to rework them as suggested above and
submit them again, it would be great!

Thanks a lot for this effort!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com