[Buildroot] [PATCH] ipkg: needs MMU

[Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il>]

Hi Thomas,

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 01:48:01PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:15:57 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > Right. It's this code from libbb/libbb.h:
> > 
> > /* Cope with mmu-less systems somewhat gracefully */
> > #if defined(__UCLIBC__) && !defined(__ARCH_HAS_MMU__)
> > #define fork    vfork
> > #endif
> > 
> > This breaks musl that does not define __UCLIBC__. I posted an updated patch to 
> > uses HAVE_FORK instead.
> 
> We don't use musl on any noMMU platform today, so this certainly cannot
> explain failures like:
> 
>   http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/6cf/6cf75e08795d9ab194ce4e882c0f4858bad979c3/
> 
> (which was the first one mentioned in your commit log), since this
> failure happens with uClibc.
> 
> Looking at http://autobuild.buildroot.net/?reason=ipkg-0.99.163, I see
> (looking only at the failures since the beginning of 2016) :
> 
>  * Numerous failures on ARM noMMU (uClibc)
>  * Two failures on m68k noMMU (uClibc)
>  * An old failure on i686 due to download issue
> 
> i.e, none of the failures are caused by a musl-related build.

You are right of course, forgive my sloppiness. To be correct for uClibc the 
code should test for __ARCH_USE_MMU__ instead of __ARCH_HAS_MMU__. But testing 
HAVE_FORK is better, I thing, since it also covers other hypothetical MMU-less 
C libraries.

I'll resend the patch with a correct description.

baruch

-- 
     http://baruch.siach.name/blog/                  ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
   - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -