From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waldemar Brodkorb Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 23:07:04 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] uclibc-ng: enable fts in default config file. In-Reply-To: <20170718230641.479308e9@windsurf> 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> <20170716164353.GI1482@waldemar-brodkorb.de> <246b2393-ffd3-99e5-5de9-db52d73488bb@mind.be> <20170718230641.479308e9@windsurf> Message-ID: <20170718210704.GO1482@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, Thomas Petazzoni wrote, > Hello, > > On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:24:05 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > > I'm with you on this one. If a package can work with uClibc, we really should > > allow it. > > > > However, I don't think the solution is to bloat our default uClibc config with > > features that are not useful for 99.82% of our packages. fts.h is not something > > like IPv6 that is useful for a large number of packages. > > > > I also don't think we should add more options like BR2_ENABLE_LOCALE that copy > > the uClibc config options. > > > > Perhaps the way to go is to have a BR2_TOOLCHAIN_UCLIBC_BLOAT_CONFIG option > > that a user can set to indicate he wants to see packages that will not work with > > our default uClibc config. That option could give a nice warning that this > > configuration is not tested and YMMV. > > I have to say I don't like this. If we have an option, it should work, > and therefore be tested. It's the worst thing for users to simply tick > an option, and discover build failures here and there. If you have an > option that explicitly allows to do something, then that something > should work. I still don't get it. We are not trying to disable fts in glibc, so it is available there. Why we can't enable it for uClibc-ng to get more compatibility? Just because of the bigger size? If someone needs a really small system, there is always the possibilty to use a really small uClibc-ng config. best regards Waldemar