From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:49:51 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] glibc: add version 2.24 In-Reply-To: <20160808164209.GA5876@free.fr> References: <1470387567-64171-1-git-send-email-Vincent.Riera@imgtec.com> <20160805185348.4c0ff1fd@free-electrons.com> <20160808164209.GA5876@free.fr> Message-ID: <20160809104951.1ad736d4@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, On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 18:42:09 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > It is not written completely clearly: they first say that on > > x86/x86-64, 2.6.32 is sufficient, but they conclude that 3.2 is the > > minimum version on all architectures. It would be good to clarify this > > aspect. > > What this means, at least what I understand it means, is that: > > - glibc 2.24 will not *run* on kernels more ancient than 3.2, except on > x86/x86_64, when it will not run on kernels older than 2.6.32. > > This is a runtime dependency. > > - glibc needs kernel headers 3.2 (or later) for all architectures, > even for x86/x86_64. > > This is a built-time dependency. OK. From Buildroot's perspective, all what matters is the build-time dependency. If the 3.2 kernel headers are needed to build glibc 2.24, then glibc 2.24 should depend on headers >= 3.2. > > Regardless of this detail, this means we will have to encode this > > dependency somehow. Indeed, we still have people using kernels older > > than 3.2 I believe on various platforms. > > On all but x86_x86_64, yes. I don't get this. From my point of view, the x86/x86_64 "exception" is of no use to us: all we are interested in is the build-time dependency. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com