From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waldemar Brodkorb Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 18:43:53 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] uclibc-ng: enable fts in default config file. In-Reply-To: <87inis8jjj.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <20170713142549.28078-1-aduskett@gmail.com> <20170715114432.0b01a373@windsurf> <87d191afyw.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20170715214809.2158c3e2@windsurf> <87inis8jjj.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20170716164353.GI1482@waldemar-brodkorb.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Peter, Thomas, Peter Korsgaard wrote, > >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: > > > Hello, > > On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:15:51 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > >> > Note that contrary to what Adam commit log says, the size increase is > >> > 7.5 KB. > >> > >> Hmm, 7.5KB isn't much - But fts isn't enabled by default in uClibc-nc, > >> it is a legacy BSD feature and it also isn't supported by musl. > > > Agreed. > > >> It is easy to enable uClibc options, but difficult to disable them again > >> later (as users of the affected packages get caught). > >> > >> Looking around, it seems we are only talking about 3 packages (if the > >> annotations are correct): > >> > >> git grep -l 'fts.h' **/Config.in > >> package/libcgroup/Config.in > >> package/libselinux/Config.in > >> package/libsemanage/Config.in > >> > >> Do we care enough for selinux users on uClibc (libcgroup seems to only > >> be an optional dependency for gst1-rtsp-server) to let all other > >> uClibc-ng users pay? > > > I would personally say no. The driving reason for Adam was to be able > > to build the SELinux stuff. But indeed, if you're adding all the > > SELinux overhead on your system, you most likely have the filesystem > > space needed to switch to glibc. > > > So I'm fine if we decide to say "no". It should hopefully increase the > > pressure on the upstream projects to move away from a legacy BSD > > interface, and use the POSIX interface instead. > > Ok, agreed. Adam, sorry but we prefer to keep things as they > are. It should be fairly easy for uClibc-ng users wanting to enable > selinux to notice that they need to change to glibc instead based on the > comment: > > comment "libselinux needs a glibc toolchain w/ threads, dynamic library" But this is not the case, they don't need to switch to glibc. The decision makes me sad, as it goes the opposite way I try to develop in Buildroot. I added a lot of stuff f.e. to uClibc-ng to allow to build and use systemd. The required systemd patches are upstream. I regulary try to enable packages which are disabled for no good reason for uClibc users. AutoFS next version will contain the patch allowing to use uClibc-ng and libtirpc instead of Glibc. And what about the people using an architecture which is not supported by glibc? Like Sparc, ARC, Xtensa and Or1k? Or the no-MMU architectures? We enabled Wordexp recently and I would really love to see this enabled, too. Could you rethink about your decision? best regards Waldemar