From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Seiderer Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 20:13:51 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package/elfutils: fix build with uclibc In-Reply-To: References: <20210318074219.4113728-1-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> <20210318183316.78e4a75c@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20210318201351.3ad14bf8@gmx.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello Fabrice, On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:48:24 +0100, Fabrice Fontaine wrote: > Hello Peter, > > Le jeu. 18 mars 2021 ? 18:33, Peter Seiderer a ?crit : > > > > Hello Fabrice, > > > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 08:42:19 +0100, Fabrice Fontaine wrote: > > > > > Update first patch to fix a build failure with uclibc and elfutils in > > > version 0.183.0 which errors out if obstack is not found since > > > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=elfutils.git;a=commit;h=da855fc9cd415c288bfcb9de1f3d5eb329de0557 > > > > > > Indeed, obstack has been removed from uclibc-ng since version 1.0.21 and > > > https://github.com/wbx-github/uclibc-ng/commit/0bd6bfb2b643ea2b4b1440dfd917ba752f0c0d15 > > > > > > Fixes: > > > - http://autobuild.buildroot.org/results/003ae73c7b48ad6b9837fb19ca197061d20eaf6d > > > > > > > Thanks for taking care of the build failure, but... > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabrice Fontaine > > > --- > > > ...-Add-a-enable-disable-progs-configure-option.patch | 11 +++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/package/elfutils/0001-Add-a-enable-disable-progs-configure-option.patch b/package/elfutils/0001-Add-a-enable-disable-progs-configure-option.patch > > > index e51f749cf6..bac9bc1245 100644 > > > --- a/package/elfutils/0001-Add-a-enable-disable-progs-configure-option.patch > > > +++ b/package/elfutils/0001-Add-a-enable-disable-progs-configure-option.patch > > > @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ Signed-off-by: Vicente Olivert Riera > > > Signed-off-by: Bernd Kuhls > > > [Rebased on 0.183] > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Seiderer > > > +[Fabrice: don't error out if obstack is not found] > > > +Signed-off-by: Fabrice Fontaine > > > --- > > > Makefile.am | 6 +++++- > > > configure.ac | 6 ++++++ > > > @@ -60,6 +62,15 @@ index d345495..0dd4b1e 100644 > > > dnl zlib is mandatory. > > > save_LIBS="$LIBS" > > > LIBS= > > > +@@ -579,7 +585,7 @@ saved_LIBS="$LIBS" > > > + AC_SEARCH_LIBS([_obstack_free], [obstack]) > > > + LIBS="$saved_LIBS" > > > + case "$ac_cv_search__obstack_free" in > > > +- no) AC_MSG_FAILURE([failed to find _obstack_free]) ;; > > > ++ no) obstack_LIBS= ;; > > > + -l*) obstack_LIBS="$ac_cv_search__obstack_free" ;; > > > + *) obstack_LIBS= ;; > > > + esac > > > -- > > > 2.30.1 > > > > > > > Is this not a complete unrelated/new matter (and so belongs to an extra patch)? > From my perspective, this is not unrelated as obstack has "always" > been used by some of the elfutils program but I'm open to discussion. O.k, good point ;-), maybe this reasoning is worth to be more emphasized in the commit message/patch-commit-message? > I can create a dedicated patch but it doesn't make sense to send it > upstream without first patch. For upstream the check/error-out on obstack should depend on the --{enable,disable}-progs option... > I don't know if first patch was sent and if so, what was upstream reaction? > An other option would be to disable elfutils on uclibc as I don't > think we should maintain not upstreamable patch forever. Give it a upstream chance... ;-) Nevertheless you can add my: Reviewed-by: Peter Seiderer Regards, Peter > > > > Regards, > > Peter > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Fabrice