[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/keepalived: make suport for Linux headers >= 3.2

[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/keepalived: make suport for Linux headers >= 3.2

[Vadym Kochan]

From: Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@plvision.eu>

There are some toolchains which is compiled with Linux 3.2 heaers, it
would good to support them too because the package bulds fine with them.

Signed-off-by: Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@plvision.eu>
---
 package/keepalived/Config.in | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/keepalived/Config.in b/package/keepalived/Config.in
index c71821545c..223ed5a4e6 100644
--- a/package/keepalived/Config.in
+++ b/package/keepalived/Config.in
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_KEEPALIVED
 	bool "keepalived"
 	depends on BR2_USE_MMU
 	depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # uses libdl
-	depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HEADERS_AT_LEAST_3_4
+	depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HEADERS_AT_LEAST_3_2
 	select BR2_PACKAGE_OPENSSL
 	help
 	  The main goal of the keepalived project is to add a strong &
@@ -15,6 +15,6 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_KEEPALIVED
 
 	  http://www.keepalived.org/
 
-comment "keepalived needs a toolchain w/ dynamic library, headers >= 3.4"
+comment "keepalived needs a toolchain w/ dynamic library, headers >= 3.2"
 	depends on BR2_USE_MMU
-	depends on BR2_STATIC_LIBS || !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HEADERS_AT_LEAST_3_4
+	depends on BR2_STATIC_LIBS || !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HEADERS_AT_LEAST_3_2
-- 
2.17.1

[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/keepalived: make suport for Linux headers >= 3.2

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello Vadym,

On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:22:40 +0300
Vadym Kochan <vadim4j@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@plvision.eu>
> 
> There are some toolchains which is compiled with Linux 3.2 heaers, it
> would good to support them too because the package bulds fine with them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@plvision.eu>

Have you looked at commit d01b0bbad04b97a5e8e1dd3ac3c1026555f793fb,
which added this headers >= 3.4 dependency ?

Was the kernel headers check in keepalived mentioned in the commit log
fixed later on ?

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/keepalived: make suport for Linux headers >= 3.2

[Thomas Petazzoni]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:51:20 +0300
Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@plvision.eu> wrote:

> > Was the kernel headers check in keepalived mentioned in the commit log
> > fixed later on ?
> >   
> 
> Looks like the original issue was related to ipset.

Right, and ? Why has the issue disappeared ?

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/keepalived: make suport for Linux headers >= 3.2

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello Vadym,

On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 20:07:53 +0200
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:51:20 +0300
> Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@plvision.eu> wrote:
> 
> > > Was the kernel headers check in keepalived mentioned in the commit log
> > > fixed later on ?
> > >     
> > 
> > Looks like the original issue was related to ipset.  
> 
> Right, and ? Why has the issue disappeared ?

Since I got no reply on this question, I've marked the patch as Changes
Requested. Do not hesitate to send an updated version of the patch,
with a more detailed commit log that provides additional explanations.

Thanks!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/keepalived: make suport for Linux headers >= 3.2

[Vadym Kochan]

Hi Thomas,

Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> writes:

> Hello Vadym,
>
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 20:07:53 +0200
> Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:51:20 +0300
>> Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@plvision.eu> wrote:
>> 
>> > > Was the kernel headers check in keepalived mentioned in the commit log
>> > > fixed later on ?
>> > >     
>> > 
>> > Looks like the original issue was related to ipset.  
>> 
>> Right, and ? Why has the issue disappeared ?
>
> Since I got no reply on this question, I've marked the patch as Changes
> Requested. Do not hesitate to send an updated version of the patch,
> with a more detailed commit log that provides additional explanations.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Thomas

Yes, thats OK as I plan to do more deep investigation by testing of
several builds with and without ipset tools, just still had no time.
It seems to me that Config.in needs some additional condition by
considering if ipset is enabled or not.

Regards,
Vadym