From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thiago_A._Corr=EAa?= Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:59:32 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] Qtopia4 Failure In-Reply-To: <20070924081339.GA31515@aon.at> References: <1190563965.7015.21.camel@elrond.atmel.sweden> <1190591711.4299.17.camel@cyclops.infocab.com.au> <1190595992.4299.27.camel@cyclops.infocab.com.au> <1190600185.4299.44.camel@cyclops.infocab.com.au> <1190606113.22869.5.camel@cyclops.infocab.com.au> <20070924081339.GA31515@aon.at> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Bernhard, The implementation doesn't seam fine. Is there any good reason not to wrap strchr in a function instead of a macro? It can be stripped off by the SUS3 switch just as easily. According to Adam, this is required by mplayer (yeah, they are broken, shame on them). I don't see why mplayer and qtopia and possibly other packages should be mutually exclusive. Unless one builds uClib twice. On 9/24/07, Bernhard Fischer wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 01:25:13PM +0930, Adam Hawes wrote: > > > >> You are fixing newer, valid and good code in the name of legacy > >> compatibility with a flawed work around for legacy API. The simple > >> fact that there are more than one way around it doesn't make the patch > >> the better way. And I think we should strive for the better way to fix > >> things ;) > > > >"Better" is such a subjective word. Who defines what is better in their > >particular instance? > > The current impl in uClibc is fine. You're broken if you rely on those > legacy stuff anyway, just turn it off to safe you some headache. >