From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 23:37:43 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/3] ltp-testsuite: bump to version 20160920 In-Reply-To: <1475322624-20518-2-git-send-email-nunes.erico@gmail.com> References: <1475322624-20518-1-git-send-email-nunes.erico@gmail.com> <1475322624-20518-2-git-send-email-nunes.erico@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20161003233743.5cae3f1f@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 Sat, 1 Oct 2016 13:50:23 +0200, Erico Nunes wrote: > Patch 0001-fix-uClibc-build.patch is now part of upstream so it is not > needed in Buildroot anymore. The remaining patches were just rebased and > then renumbered so that they apply cleanly to this new version. > > This has been build-tested with both glibc and uClibc toolchains and > run-tested on x86_64 and aarch64. > > Signed-off-by: Erico Nunes Applied to master, thanks! > I wonder if we should really maintain the uClibc-related patches given > that even the patches themselves mention that they are not upstreamable. > This feels a bit like maintaining feature patches. If upstream adds more > changes that break uClibc, we would need to maintain that ourselves. > I'm interested in maintaining this package but if it turns out that it > eventually starts breaking for uClibc in future versions, I'd vote for > removing uClibc support for it. I looked at the remaining patches: - 0001 I'm not sure to fully understand - 0002 and 0002 are just missing features in uClibc, I don't see why those patches can't be upstreamed. Waldemar, maybe you could help? - 0004 fixes an issue that also occurs with libtirpc, so it definitely should be upstreamable Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com