From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Baruch Siach Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:45:16 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/3] toolchain: workaround musl/kernel headers conflict In-Reply-To: <20161115233347.107fd31d@free-electrons.com> References: <20161115233347.107fd31d@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20161116154516.w2e2wqerideqxsra@sapphire.tkos.co.il> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Thomas, On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:33:47PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:33:31 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > > However, if bridge-utils and norm are really the only packages that suffer from > > this problem, is it really worthwhile to apply this workaround? > > I'm sure there are more packages that we have patched for this reason, > and possibly other build failures still unfixed that would get fixed > (or at least partially). > > *However*, the musl folks have already committed a patch that > apparently resolves the problem: > > http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/?id=04983f2272382af92eb8f8838964ff944fbb8258 > > Baruch, could you investigate whether this musl commit fixes the header > conflict problem for bridge-utils and norm? The commit log links to this musl commit and to a mailing list report[1] that this fix is not enough on its own. As a result of this discussion Felix Janda posted a kernel patch[2] to address the issue. See also Rich's response[3]. Even if this patch is accepted, we'll most likely have to keep this workaround, or an equivalent, for as long as we support kernel headers v4.9 and older. [1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/11/09/2 [2] http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/11/11/1 [3] http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/11/11/2 baruch -- http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -