From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:33:08 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] glibc: add version 2.24 In-Reply-To: <20160809104951.1ad736d4@free-electrons.com> References: <1470387567-64171-1-git-send-email-Vincent.Riera@imgtec.com> <20160805185348.4c0ff1fd@free-electrons.com> <20160808164209.GA5876@free.fr> <20160809104951.1ad736d4@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20160809193308.GB5779@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Thomas, All, On 2016-08-09 10:49 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: > 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. Yes. That's what Vicente did in his v3 of his patch: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/657159/ > > > 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. Well, I mixed it a bit in my head... What I was thinking was that we should still allow building a glibc-based toolchain even if the running kernel was older than 3.2 for x86/x86_64. But we have no way to enforce that: we have no _AT_LEAST_X_Y symbols for the running kernel (not that we want to have them). Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'