From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05C37C4708E for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 13:32:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E12F608F5; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 13:32:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 4E12F608F5 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LXPJrM8v_44Y; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 13:32:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC0360A65; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 13:32:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org EFC0360A65 Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1423D1BF3B5 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 13:32:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA68C60A65 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 13:32:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org EA68C60A65 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31Tv-QHvYmH4 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 13:32:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from busybox.osuosl.org (busybox.osuosl.org [140.211.167.122]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3792A608F5 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 13:32:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 3792A608F5 Received: by busybox.osuosl.org (Postfix, from userid 81) id 208E88426F; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 13:32:01 +0000 (UTC) From: bugzilla@busybox.net To: buildroot@uclibc.org Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2023 13:32:00 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: buildroot X-Bugzilla-Component: Other X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: tomas@slax.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P5 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned@buildroot.uclibc.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version rep_platform op_sys bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter cc target_milestone Message-ID: X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.busybox.net/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Buildroot] [Bug 15221] New: FUSE filesystems can be statically compiled X-BeenThere: buildroot@buildroot.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion and development of buildroot List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: buildroot-bounces@buildroot.org Sender: "buildroot" https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=15221 Bug ID: 15221 Summary: FUSE filesystems can be statically compiled Product: buildroot Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Other Assignee: unassigned@buildroot.uclibc.org Reporter: tomas@slax.org CC: buildroot@uclibc.org Target Milestone: --- I can see the FUSE library as well as the fuse-based filesystems are marked to require dynamic library linking, because it does not compile with uclibc statically. However, if I select to use musl instead of uclibc, and if I make the necessary changes to let libfuse and other fuse filesystems to compile statically, then it works just fine. It compiles statically with musl and works OK. I have no idea if it is possible to mark a package requiring dynamic linking ONLY IF uclibc is selected, but if this possibility exists, you should consider it, because if user selects musl, there is no need for him to disable static linking. Thanks for consideration Tomas M -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot