From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 23:59:40 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] Rework musl fix patches Message-ID: <20160221235940.0b4d71ec@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net 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//. - 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