Re: musl thoughts

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 02:11:35AM +0100, Andreas Müller wrote:
>...
> 3. Change our musl slightly: Many patches we currently have are
> trivial. Missing headers or #defines for missing functions... So if we
> add few headers
>   * Empty chunks for e.g <net/ethernet.h>
>...
> Some other ideas?

Not upstreamable hacks aren't a long-term sustainable way,
no matter where you do the patching.

net/ethernet.h header problems are requiring 2 patches in NM.

It would be good to get whatever is the actual root cause fixed properly,
and that fix upstreamed.

E.g. I wonder whether this was supposed to be fixed by
0001-if_ether-move-muslc-ethhdr-protection-to-uapi-file.patch

Or is this patch in linux-libc-headers even the cause of the problem?

linux-libc-headers applying 6 patches just for musl is not a good sign 
in any case.
Is that much patching also done by other distributions that use musl?
Why are these patches Upstream-Status: Pending/Submitted for a  long 
time without having been applied upstream?

Long-term it would be less work if everything would get fixed properly
with fixes reviewed and applied by upstream.

> Andreas
>...

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed