From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 21:18:29 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package/tftpd: fix static build In-Reply-To: <20210718190136.GH12203@scaer> References: <20210710084313.893425-1-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> <20210716232144.7a9d3371@windsurf> <20210718190136.GH12203@scaer> Message-ID: <20210718211829.6c4dc00b@windsurf> List-Id: To: buildroot@busybox.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 21:01:36 +0200 "Yann E. MORIN" wrote: > > However, given that this is an upstream commit that was applied 7 > > years ago, I think it is pretty safe to apply it to LTS. > > I was confused, because both commits (on tftpd and uClibc) are about 7 > years old, so I was wondering which you were referring to... > > But yes, you were rerferring to the tftpd commit. Which got me wondering > why we needed to apply a patch that have been applied upstream 7 years > ago. Why can't we just bump the version rather than backport patches? > > Ah, tftpd hasn't had any new release for the past 10 years now, so *are* > up-to-date... > > But then, yes, why can't we just switch to the latest commit in the git > tree, then, rather than backport the fix? Given that tftpd hasn't seen > any commit since 2015, we would not take too big a risk... But besides that, I'm still confused as to why the problem happened only once in the autobuilders. It does happen with the powerpc/internal toolchain/static configuration that failed in the autobuilders, but doesn't fail with the pre-built br-arm-full-static toolchain, which also uses a statically-linked uClibc... Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com