From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 21:59:59 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4] mtree: new package In-Reply-To: <20190328210043.41fc2c0d@windsurf> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Thu, 28 Mar 2019 21:00:43 +0100") References: <20190326142411.6943-1-esben.haabendal@gmail.com> <20190327201803.6b1a832d@windsurf> <87bm1w9ck5.fsf@haabendal.dk> <20190328121441.02648d09@windsurf> <87tvfnav5a.fsf@gmail.com> <02a2e44d-45e9-f3fc-8c1f-5cf7a8b8f5d8@mind.be> <20190328210043.41fc2c0d@windsurf> Message-ID: <87ef6qlnow.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: > On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 19:13:16 +0100 > Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >> > I think I will give option 2 a try. Sounds like a nice solution :-) >> >> To be honest, I'm more inclined to remove the -U completely and add an >> autobuilder exception... I don't believe we have to go too far to work around >> bugs in old toolchains. > I'm fine with this as well. It means we would no longer support glibc > 2.19 anymore. Didn't you just last month argue against removing support for glibc < 2.19 support (the runc security fix): http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2019-February/244056.html I don't have a problem dropping support for ancient toolchains when they add too much complexity, but the lack of large file support is mtree is probably not really reason enough. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard