From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:48:41 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2014-11-19 In-Reply-To: <20141120112730.156f9ee6@free-electrons.com> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:27:30 +0100") References: <20141120073014.164A510107F@stock.ovh.net> <20141120094407.4b487379@free-electrons.com> <87y4r6fc2v.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20141120112730.156f9ee6@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <87ppcif8qe.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: Hi, >> > The uClibc bug about setreuid(). >> >> > What do we do about this one? It still isn't fixed upstream. Should we >> > simply disable uClibc for static builds? (But then we would only have >> > musl left as a C library compatible with static builds). Or do we >> > simply blacklist for now the packages that are known to use the symbols >> > causing problems? >> >> > Peter? >> >> uClibc with static linking is useful for quite some setups, so I would >> find it a pity to globally disable it. Let's just disable the affected >> packages with a comment. > So you suggest to disable them within Buildroot, or through an > exception in the autobuild-run script? > Advantage of doing it in the autobuild-run script: we don't need to > propagate to all the reverse dependencies. The script will exclude any > configuration that has the problematic package selected with a uClibc > toolchain. > Drawback of doing it in the autobuild-run script: normal users of > Buildroot may run into the issue. Is there other packages than cdrkit? If the packages don't have huge reverse dependencies then I would prefer to disable them in Buildroot. >> >> sh4a | qt-4.8.6 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/119adf6a31266e71e45fb1951d7e8ebbd1ff41fe/ >> >> > Bug in the CodeSourcery SH4 toolchain. I don't think we have any other >> > solution than blacklisting configurations that contain Qt4 Webkit and >> > that use this toolchain. Opinions? >> >> Yes, I also think we should just blacklist it. > I'll add an exception to the autobuilder then. Why not to buildroot? It's a toolchain we have a preset for, right? -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard