[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/localedef: bump to version 2.32-23

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/localedef: bump to version 2.32-23

[Romain Naour]

resync the version with glibc package.

Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com>
---
 .../0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch            | 0
 ...02-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch | 0
 .../localedef.hash                                              | 2 +-
 package/localedef/localedef.mk                                  | 2 +-
 4 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 rename package/localedef/{2.32-23-g050022910be1d1f5c11cd5168f1685ad4f9580d2 => 2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2}/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch (100%)
 rename package/localedef/{2.32-23-g050022910be1d1f5c11cd5168f1685ad4f9580d2 => 2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2}/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch (100%)
 rename package/localedef/{2.32-23-g050022910be1d1f5c11cd5168f1685ad4f9580d2 => 2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2}/localedef.hash (72%)

diff --git a/package/localedef/2.32-23-g050022910be1d1f5c11cd5168f1685ad4f9580d2/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch b/package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch
similarity index 100%
rename from package/localedef/2.32-23-g050022910be1d1f5c11cd5168f1685ad4f9580d2/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch
rename to package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch
diff --git a/package/localedef/2.32-23-g050022910be1d1f5c11cd5168f1685ad4f9580d2/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch b/package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch
similarity index 100%
rename from package/localedef/2.32-23-g050022910be1d1f5c11cd5168f1685ad4f9580d2/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch
rename to package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch
diff --git a/package/localedef/2.32-23-g050022910be1d1f5c11cd5168f1685ad4f9580d2/localedef.hash b/package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/localedef.hash
similarity index 72%
rename from package/localedef/2.32-23-g050022910be1d1f5c11cd5168f1685ad4f9580d2/localedef.hash
rename to package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/localedef.hash
index 45ecc2895f..b1d5243fcc 100644
--- a/package/localedef/2.32-23-g050022910be1d1f5c11cd5168f1685ad4f9580d2/localedef.hash
+++ b/package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/localedef.hash
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 # Locally calculated (fetched from Github)
-sha256  04946bb7cbaf4062bf5e727e0d6784e105b07611587d71f00d25ea896753c26d  glibc-2.32-23-g050022910be1d1f5c11cd5168f1685ad4f9580d2.tar.gz
+sha256  f4710e9a435a7b83e1d23dd75434f0d36b898eba9b4249c946c32b467d852fd4  glibc-2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2.tar.gz
 
 # Hashes for license files
 sha256  8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643  COPYING
diff --git a/package/localedef/localedef.mk b/package/localedef/localedef.mk
index d75702d847..57ab5a3458 100644
--- a/package/localedef/localedef.mk
+++ b/package/localedef/localedef.mk
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 # Use the same VERSION and SITE as target glibc
 # As in glibc.mk, generate version string using:
 #   git describe --match 'glibc-*' --abbrev=40 origin/release/MAJOR.MINOR/master | cut -d '-' -f 2-
-LOCALEDEF_VERSION = 2.32-23-g050022910be1d1f5c11cd5168f1685ad4f9580d2
+LOCALEDEF_VERSION = 2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2
 LOCALEDEF_SOURCE = glibc-$(LOCALEDEF_VERSION).tar.gz
 LOCALEDEF_SITE = $(call github,bminor,glibc,$(LOCALEDEF_VERSION))
 HOST_LOCALEDEF_DL_SUBDIR = glibc
-- 
2.30.2

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/{glibc, localedef}: bump to version 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Romain Naour]

See:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-February/122207.html
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.33

Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com>
---
Tested with all Qemu defconfigs.
---
 .../glibc.hash                                                  | 2 +-
 package/glibc/glibc.mk                                          | 2 +-
 .../0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch            | 0
 ...02-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch | 0
 .../localedef.hash                                              | 2 +-
 package/localedef/localedef.mk                                  | 2 +-
 6 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
 rename package/glibc/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/glibc.hash (70%)
 rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch (100%)
 rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch (100%)
 rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/localedef.hash (70%)

diff --git a/package/glibc/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/glibc.hash b/package/glibc/2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c/glibc.hash
similarity index 70%
rename from package/glibc/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/glibc.hash
rename to package/glibc/2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c/glibc.hash
index b1d5243fcc..3f3598c31a 100644
--- a/package/glibc/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/glibc.hash
+++ b/package/glibc/2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c/glibc.hash
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 # Locally calculated (fetched from Github)
-sha256  f4710e9a435a7b83e1d23dd75434f0d36b898eba9b4249c946c32b467d852fd4  glibc-2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2.tar.gz
+sha256  ec2d7b91c8bbe7887b0bb34ab2df9007b2b45c17b502fc333efca28eb7546df6  glibc-2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c.tar.gz
 
 # Hashes for license files
 sha256  8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643  COPYING
diff --git a/package/glibc/glibc.mk b/package/glibc/glibc.mk
index f84f670fc0..e94df73bfe 100644
--- a/package/glibc/glibc.mk
+++ b/package/glibc/glibc.mk
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ ifeq ($(BR2_RISCV_32),y)
 # Until 2.33 is released, just use master
 GLIBC_VERSION = 2.32.9000-69-gbd394d131c10c9ec22c6424197b79410042eed99
 else
-GLIBC_VERSION = 2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2
+GLIBC_VERSION = 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c
 endif
 # Upstream doesn't officially provide an https download link.
 # There is one (https://sourceware.org/git/glibc.git) but it's not reliable,
diff --git a/package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch b/package/localedef/2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch
similarity index 100%
rename from package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch
rename to package/localedef/2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch
diff --git a/package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch b/package/localedef/2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch
similarity index 100%
rename from package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch
rename to package/localedef/2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch
diff --git a/package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/localedef.hash b/package/localedef/2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c/localedef.hash
similarity index 70%
rename from package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/localedef.hash
rename to package/localedef/2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c/localedef.hash
index b1d5243fcc..3f3598c31a 100644
--- a/package/localedef/2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2/localedef.hash
+++ b/package/localedef/2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c/localedef.hash
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 # Locally calculated (fetched from Github)
-sha256  f4710e9a435a7b83e1d23dd75434f0d36b898eba9b4249c946c32b467d852fd4  glibc-2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2.tar.gz
+sha256  ec2d7b91c8bbe7887b0bb34ab2df9007b2b45c17b502fc333efca28eb7546df6  glibc-2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c.tar.gz
 
 # Hashes for license files
 sha256  8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643  COPYING
diff --git a/package/localedef/localedef.mk b/package/localedef/localedef.mk
index 57ab5a3458..a633855baf 100644
--- a/package/localedef/localedef.mk
+++ b/package/localedef/localedef.mk
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 # Use the same VERSION and SITE as target glibc
 # As in glibc.mk, generate version string using:
 #   git describe --match 'glibc-*' --abbrev=40 origin/release/MAJOR.MINOR/master | cut -d '-' -f 2-
-LOCALEDEF_VERSION = 2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2
+LOCALEDEF_VERSION = 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c
 LOCALEDEF_SOURCE = glibc-$(LOCALEDEF_VERSION).tar.gz
 LOCALEDEF_SITE = $(call github,bminor,glibc,$(LOCALEDEF_VERSION))
 HOST_LOCALEDEF_DL_SUBDIR = glibc
-- 
2.30.2

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/localedef: bump to version 2.32-23

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 26/04/2021 12:10, Romain Naour wrote:
> resync the version with glibc package.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com>


 Applied to master, thanks.

 Regards,
 Arnout

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/{glibc, localedef}: bump to version 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 26/04/2021 12:10, Romain Naour wrote:
[snip]
>  rename package/glibc/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/glibc.hash (70%)
>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch (100%)
>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch (100%)
>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/localedef.hash (70%)

 Now you're messing with these packages, maybe you can take the opportunity to
get rid of the versioned subdirectory. That's a leftover from when we had
version selection for glibc.

[snip]

> diff --git a/package/glibc/glibc.mk b/package/glibc/glibc.mk
> index f84f670fc0..e94df73bfe 100644
> --- a/package/glibc/glibc.mk
> +++ b/package/glibc/glibc.mk
> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ ifeq ($(BR2_RISCV_32),y)
>  # Until 2.33 is released, just use master
>  GLIBC_VERSION = 2.32.9000-69-gbd394d131c10c9ec22c6424197b79410042eed99

 Since 2.33 is released now, can we use master for riscv32 please?

 Marked as Changes Requested.


 Regards,
 Arnout


>  else
> -GLIBC_VERSION = 2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2
> +GLIBC_VERSION = 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/{glibc, localedef}: bump to version 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Yann E. MORIN]

Arnout, Romain, All,

On 2021-04-26 21:36 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
> On 26/04/2021 12:10, Romain Naour wrote:
> [snip]
> >  rename package/glibc/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/glibc.hash (70%)
> >  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch (100%)
> >  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch (100%)
> >  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/localedef.hash (70%)
> 
>  Now you're messing with these packages, maybe you can take the opportunity to
> get rid of the versioned subdirectory. That's a leftover from when we had
> version selection for glibc.

We stil have a version choice for glibc; it's just not exposed to the
user: indeed we use different version for csky, riscv32, and the rest.

So, we still do not want to apply the "generic" patches to the csky
fork, or to the riscv32 version...

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/localedef: bump to version 2.32-23

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Romain" == Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> writes:

 > resync the version with glibc package.
 > Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com>

NIT: subject says -23, but the patch correctly changes to -37.

Fixed that and committed to 2021.02.x, thanks.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/{glibc, localedef}: bump to version 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Romain Naour]

Hello Arnout,

Le 26/04/2021 ? 21:36, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit?:
> 
> 
> On 26/04/2021 12:10, Romain Naour wrote:
> [snip]
>>  rename package/glibc/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/glibc.hash (70%)
>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch (100%)
>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch (100%)
>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/localedef.hash (70%)
> 
>  Now you're messing with these packages, maybe you can take the opportunity to
> get rid of the versioned subdirectory. That's a leftover from when we had
> version selection for glibc.

See Yann's reply.

I'm not a big fan of not having the glibc version choice. I would prefer having
the choice between the latest version (bleeding-edge) and the previous one
(stable). Bumping Glibc introduce some breaking change that need to be fixed in
several packages.

For toolchain-builder project, this means that the stable and bleeding-edge
toolchain use the same glibc version, unlike for other toolchain elements.

> 
> [snip]
> 
>> diff --git a/package/glibc/glibc.mk b/package/glibc/glibc.mk
>> index f84f670fc0..e94df73bfe 100644
>> --- a/package/glibc/glibc.mk
>> +++ b/package/glibc/glibc.mk
>> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ ifeq ($(BR2_RISCV_32),y)
>>  # Until 2.33 is released, just use master
>>  GLIBC_VERSION = 2.32.9000-69-gbd394d131c10c9ec22c6424197b79410042eed99
> 
>  Since 2.33 is released now, can we use master for riscv32 please?

Indeed.

Best regards,
Romain

> 
>  Marked as Changes Requested.
> 
> 
>  Regards,
>  Arnout
> 
> 
>>  else
>> -GLIBC_VERSION = 2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2
>> +GLIBC_VERSION = 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/{glibc, localedef}: bump to version 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 26/04/2021 21:43, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Arnout, Romain, All,
> 
> On 2021-04-26 21:36 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
>> On 26/04/2021 12:10, Romain Naour wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>  rename package/glibc/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/glibc.hash (70%)
>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch (100%)
>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch (100%)
>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/localedef.hash (70%)
>>
>>  Now you're messing with these packages, maybe you can take the opportunity to
>> get rid of the versioned subdirectory. That's a leftover from when we had
>> version selection for glibc.
> 
> We stil have a version choice for glibc; it's just not exposed to the
> user: indeed we use different version for csky, riscv32, and the rest.
> 
> So, we still do not want to apply the "generic" patches to the csky
> fork, or to the riscv32 version...

 Ah, I missed the csky fork... The riscv32 one should be gone, so I thought that
was it.

 Regardless, for localedef, we don't have a version choice so we don't need the
subdirectory there.

 Regards,
 Arnout

> 
> Regards,
> Yann E. MORIN.
> 

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/{glibc, localedef}: bump to version 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 26/04/2021 23:19, Romain Naour wrote:
> Hello Arnout,
> 
> Le 26/04/2021 ? 21:36, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit?:
>>
>>
>> On 26/04/2021 12:10, Romain Naour wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>  rename package/glibc/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/glibc.hash (70%)
>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch (100%)
>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch (100%)
>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/localedef.hash (70%)
>>
>>  Now you're messing with these packages, maybe you can take the opportunity to
>> get rid of the versioned subdirectory. That's a leftover from when we had
>> version selection for glibc.
> 
> See Yann's reply.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of not having the glibc version choice. I would prefer having
> the choice between the latest version (bleeding-edge) and the previous one
> (stable). Bumping Glibc introduce some breaking change that need to be fixed in
> several packages.

 Although I'm not a fan of version choice at all, there may indeed be a point in
having a choice here, because of all the breakage that glibc introduces.

 There are a couple of caveats though:

- It actually makes our work harder, because we *still* have to fix the
breakage, and we have a harder time detecting it (because less autobuilders will
be using the new glibc version).
- The "stable" version isn't really stable in the usual sense: upstream glibc
doesn't maintain it - so that means we have to do it ourselves. In practice, I
think that means we should track either Debian or SUSE glibc (Redhat is a bit
*too* stable IMHO).
- Usually the glibc fixes are backward compatible, but if there's ever a fix
that breaks older glibc, then we're in a pickle... That said, we already have
that problem with external toolchains, we just ignore it.

 So the only reason to re-introduce the version choice would be for users that
don't want to fix their proprietary packages but do want to update Buildroot.
But then, "stable" would have to stay the same for longer than a single LTS
cycle (in the LTS we already don't update glibc). So I think it's a lot of
effort for little added value in the end.


> For toolchain-builder project, this means that the stable and bleeding-edge
> toolchain use the same glibc version, unlike for other toolchain elements.

 For musl and uClibc we don't have a version choice either.

 Regards,
 Arnout

> 
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> diff --git a/package/glibc/glibc.mk b/package/glibc/glibc.mk
>>> index f84f670fc0..e94df73bfe 100644
>>> --- a/package/glibc/glibc.mk
>>> +++ b/package/glibc/glibc.mk
>>> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ ifeq ($(BR2_RISCV_32),y)
>>>  # Until 2.33 is released, just use master
>>>  GLIBC_VERSION = 2.32.9000-69-gbd394d131c10c9ec22c6424197b79410042eed99
>>
>>  Since 2.33 is released now, can we use master for riscv32 please?
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Best regards,
> Romain
> 
>>
>>  Marked as Changes Requested.
>>
>>
>>  Regards,
>>  Arnout
>>
>>
>>>  else
>>> -GLIBC_VERSION = 2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2
>>> +GLIBC_VERSION = 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c
> 

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/{glibc, localedef}: bump to version 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Romain Naour]

Hello Arnout,

Le 27/04/2021 ? 09:25, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit?:
> 
> 
> On 26/04/2021 21:43, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>> Arnout, Romain, All,
>>
>> On 2021-04-26 21:36 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
>>> On 26/04/2021 12:10, Romain Naour wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>  rename package/glibc/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/glibc.hash (70%)
>>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch (100%)
>>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch (100%)
>>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/localedef.hash (70%)
>>>
>>>  Now you're messing with these packages, maybe you can take the opportunity to
>>> get rid of the versioned subdirectory. That's a leftover from when we had
>>> version selection for glibc.
>>
>> We stil have a version choice for glibc; it's just not exposed to the
>> user: indeed we use different version for csky, riscv32, and the rest.
>>
>> So, we still do not want to apply the "generic" patches to the csky
>> fork, or to the riscv32 version...
> 
>  Ah, I missed the csky fork... The riscv32 one should be gone, so I thought that
> was it.

The csky for is based on glibc 2.28 but csky was added to glibc 2.29

https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=5f72b00591ce4d1b4c0418294ffe1623983d5679

Maybe we can use upstream glibc?
But we can't test with our Qemu version since csky is not yet upstream, we can
retrieve the csky qemu fork we had last year.

Guo, can you have a look?

> 
>  Regardless, for localedef, we don't have a version choice so we don't need the
> subdirectory there.

We may need a version choice for localedef depending on glibc version of
external toolchains because localedef update can introduce some incompatibilities.

https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=0ec7169e6c8cfb4bb54defb685bd04bb1da0a2aa

See also Thomas's concern:
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2020-July/287502.html

But this is still to implement.

Best regards,
Romain

> 
>  Regards,
>  Arnout
> 
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yann E. MORIN.
>>

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/{glibc, localedef}: bump to version 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Romain Naour]

Hi Arnout,

Le 27/04/2021 ? 09:34, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit?:
> 
> 
> On 26/04/2021 23:19, Romain Naour wrote:
>> Hello Arnout,
>>
>> Le 26/04/2021 ? 21:36, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit?:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26/04/2021 12:10, Romain Naour wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>  rename package/glibc/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/glibc.hash (70%)
>>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch (100%)
>>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch (100%)
>>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/localedef.hash (70%)
>>>
>>>  Now you're messing with these packages, maybe you can take the opportunity to
>>> get rid of the versioned subdirectory. That's a leftover from when we had
>>> version selection for glibc.
>>
>> See Yann's reply.
>>
>> I'm not a big fan of not having the glibc version choice. I would prefer having
>> the choice between the latest version (bleeding-edge) and the previous one
>> (stable). Bumping Glibc introduce some breaking change that need to be fixed in
>> several packages.
> 
>  Although I'm not a fan of version choice at all, there may indeed be a point in
> having a choice here, because of all the breakage that glibc introduces.
> 
>  There are a couple of caveats though:
> 
> - It actually makes our work harder, because we *still* have to fix the
> breakage, and we have a harder time detecting it (because less autobuilders will
> be using the new glibc version).

Indeed.

> - The "stable" version isn't really stable in the usual sense: upstream glibc
> doesn't maintain it - so that means we have to do it ourselves. In practice, I
> think that means we should track either Debian or SUSE glibc (Redhat is a bit
> *too* stable IMHO).

Glibc project maintain several "stable" version, so we don't have to maintain
previous glibc version ourselves.

https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.33/master
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.32/master
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.31/master
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.30/master
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.29/master
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.28/master

I would use such upstream stable branches instead of tracking glibc distribution
packages.

> - Usually the glibc fixes are backward compatible, but if there's ever a fix
> that breaks older glibc, then we're in a pickle... That said, we already have
> that problem with external toolchains, we just ignore it.
> 
>  So the only reason to re-introduce the version choice would be for users that
> don't want to fix their proprietary packages but do want to update Buildroot.
> But then, "stable" would have to stay the same for longer than a single LTS
> cycle (in the LTS we already don't update glibc). So I think it's a lot of
> effort for little added value in the end.

I see another reason, while bumping glibc we have to make sure that most of
issues related to the bump has been fixed in packages (or glibc itself) before
the next Buildroot release. Having 3 months between releases seems to me short.

> 
>> For toolchain-builder project, this means that the stable and bleeding-edge
>> toolchain use the same glibc version, unlike for other toolchain elements.
> 
>  For musl and uClibc we don't have a version choice either.

Indeed but Glibc development produce more commits between releases than musl or
uClibc, and only Glibc provide stable branches.

Best regards,
Romain


> 
>  Regards,
>  Arnout
> 
>>
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/package/glibc/glibc.mk b/package/glibc/glibc.mk
>>>> index f84f670fc0..e94df73bfe 100644
>>>> --- a/package/glibc/glibc.mk
>>>> +++ b/package/glibc/glibc.mk
>>>> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ ifeq ($(BR2_RISCV_32),y)
>>>>  # Until 2.33 is released, just use master
>>>>  GLIBC_VERSION = 2.32.9000-69-gbd394d131c10c9ec22c6424197b79410042eed99
>>>
>>>  Since 2.33 is released now, can we use master for riscv32 please?
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Romain
>>
>>>
>>>  Marked as Changes Requested.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Regards,
>>>  Arnout
>>>
>>>
>>>>  else
>>>> -GLIBC_VERSION = 2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2
>>>> +GLIBC_VERSION = 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c
>>

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/{glibc, localedef}: bump to version 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 27/04/2021 10:37, Romain Naour wrote:
> Hi Arnout,
> 
> Le 27/04/2021 ? 09:34, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit?:
>>
>>
>> On 26/04/2021 23:19, Romain Naour wrote:
>>> Hello Arnout,
>>>
>>> Le 26/04/2021 ? 21:36, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit?:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26/04/2021 12:10, Romain Naour wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>  rename package/glibc/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/glibc.hash (70%)
>>>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch (100%)
>>>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch (100%)
>>>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/localedef.hash (70%)
>>>>
>>>>  Now you're messing with these packages, maybe you can take the opportunity to
>>>> get rid of the versioned subdirectory. That's a leftover from when we had
>>>> version selection for glibc.
>>>
>>> See Yann's reply.
>>>
>>> I'm not a big fan of not having the glibc version choice. I would prefer having
>>> the choice between the latest version (bleeding-edge) and the previous one
>>> (stable). Bumping Glibc introduce some breaking change that need to be fixed in
>>> several packages.
>>
>>  Although I'm not a fan of version choice at all, there may indeed be a point in
>> having a choice here, because of all the breakage that glibc introduces.
>>
>>  There are a couple of caveats though:
>>
>> - It actually makes our work harder, because we *still* have to fix the
>> breakage, and we have a harder time detecting it (because less autobuilders will
>> be using the new glibc version).
> 
> Indeed.
> 
>> - The "stable" version isn't really stable in the usual sense: upstream glibc
>> doesn't maintain it - so that means we have to do it ourselves. In practice, I
>> think that means we should track either Debian or SUSE glibc (Redhat is a bit
>> *too* stable IMHO).
> 
> Glibc project maintain several "stable" version, so we don't have to maintain
> previous glibc version ourselves.
> 
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.33/master
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.32/master
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.31/master
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.30/master
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.29/master
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.28/master

 Oh, my bad, I really thought they abandoned the 2.31 branch once 2.33 was released.

 That takes away a major argument against version selection.

> 
> I would use such upstream stable branches instead of tracking glibc distribution
> packages.
> 
>> - Usually the glibc fixes are backward compatible, but if there's ever a fix
>> that breaks older glibc, then we're in a pickle... That said, we already have
>> that problem with external toolchains, we just ignore it.
>>
>>  So the only reason to re-introduce the version choice would be for users that
>> don't want to fix their proprietary packages but do want to update Buildroot.
>> But then, "stable" would have to stay the same for longer than a single LTS
>> cycle (in the LTS we already don't update glibc). So I think it's a lot of
>> effort for little added value in the end.
> 
> I see another reason, while bumping glibc we have to make sure that most of
> issues related to the bump has been fixed in packages (or glibc itself) before
> the next Buildroot release. Having 3 months between releases seems to me short.

 Again: having a version selection doesn't help us here, because we need those
issues to be fixed for the latest version anyway.

 The only thing we can do with the version selection is that we can make the
broken packages depend on !BR2_GLIBC_AT_LEAST_2_32.

 (Note that the implication is that we need external toolchain version symbols
and _AT_LEAST symbols for all glibc versions, like we have for GCC).


 Regards,
 Arnout

> 
>>
>>> For toolchain-builder project, this means that the stable and bleeding-edge
>>> toolchain use the same glibc version, unlike for other toolchain elements.
>>
>>  For musl and uClibc we don't have a version choice either.
> 
> Indeed but Glibc development produce more commits between releases than musl or
> uClibc, and only Glibc provide stable branches.

[snip]

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/{glibc, localedef}: bump to version 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Romain Naour]

Le 27/04/2021 ? 10:44, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit?:
> 
> 
> On 27/04/2021 10:37, Romain Naour wrote:
>> Hi Arnout,
>>
>> Le 27/04/2021 ? 09:34, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit?:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26/04/2021 23:19, Romain Naour wrote:
>>>> Hello Arnout,
>>>>
>>>> Le 26/04/2021 ? 21:36, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit?:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26/04/2021 12:10, Romain Naour wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>  rename package/glibc/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/glibc.hash (70%)
>>>>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch (100%)
>>>>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch (100%)
>>>>>>  rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/localedef.hash (70%)
>>>>>
>>>>>  Now you're messing with these packages, maybe you can take the opportunity to
>>>>> get rid of the versioned subdirectory. That's a leftover from when we had
>>>>> version selection for glibc.
>>>>
>>>> See Yann's reply.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a big fan of not having the glibc version choice. I would prefer having
>>>> the choice between the latest version (bleeding-edge) and the previous one
>>>> (stable). Bumping Glibc introduce some breaking change that need to be fixed in
>>>> several packages.
>>>
>>>  Although I'm not a fan of version choice at all, there may indeed be a point in
>>> having a choice here, because of all the breakage that glibc introduces.
>>>
>>>  There are a couple of caveats though:
>>>
>>> - It actually makes our work harder, because we *still* have to fix the
>>> breakage, and we have a harder time detecting it (because less autobuilders will
>>> be using the new glibc version).
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>>> - The "stable" version isn't really stable in the usual sense: upstream glibc
>>> doesn't maintain it - so that means we have to do it ourselves. In practice, I
>>> think that means we should track either Debian or SUSE glibc (Redhat is a bit
>>> *too* stable IMHO).
>>
>> Glibc project maintain several "stable" version, so we don't have to maintain
>> previous glibc version ourselves.
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.33/master
>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.32/master
>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.31/master
>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.30/master
>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.29/master
>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.28/master
> 
>  Oh, my bad, I really thought they abandoned the 2.31 branch once 2.33 was released.

Glibc still maintain those branches but there is no point releases

https://lwn.net/Articles/736429/

> 
>  That takes away a major argument against version selection.
> 
>>
>> I would use such upstream stable branches instead of tracking glibc distribution
>> packages.
>>
>>> - Usually the glibc fixes are backward compatible, but if there's ever a fix
>>> that breaks older glibc, then we're in a pickle... That said, we already have
>>> that problem with external toolchains, we just ignore it.
>>>
>>>  So the only reason to re-introduce the version choice would be for users that
>>> don't want to fix their proprietary packages but do want to update Buildroot.
>>> But then, "stable" would have to stay the same for longer than a single LTS
>>> cycle (in the LTS we already don't update glibc). So I think it's a lot of
>>> effort for little added value in the end.
>>
>> I see another reason, while bumping glibc we have to make sure that most of
>> issues related to the bump has been fixed in packages (or glibc itself) before
>> the next Buildroot release. Having 3 months between releases seems to me short.
> 
>  Again: having a version selection doesn't help us here, because we need those
> issues to be fixed for the latest version anyway.

Sure.

> 
>  The only thing we can do with the version selection is that we can make the
> broken packages depend on !BR2_GLIBC_AT_LEAST_2_32.
> 
>  (Note that the implication is that we need external toolchain version symbols
> and _AT_LEAST symbols for all glibc versions, like we have for GCC).

We need to be agree with all other maintainers if we want to handle two glibc
versions. Or make the final decision to only support one glibc version.

Best regards,
Romain

> 
> 
>  Regards,
>  Arnout
> 
>>
>>>
>>>> For toolchain-builder project, this means that the stable and bleeding-edge
>>>> toolchain use the same glibc version, unlike for other toolchain elements.
>>>
>>>  For musl and uClibc we don't have a version choice either.
>>
>> Indeed but Glibc development produce more commits between releases than musl or
>> uClibc, and only Glibc provide stable branches.
> 
> [snip]
> 

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/{glibc, localedef}: bump to version 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Arnout" == Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> writes:

Hi,

 >> I'm not a big fan of not having the glibc version choice. I would prefer having
 >> the choice between the latest version (bleeding-edge) and the previous one
 >> (stable). Bumping Glibc introduce some breaking change that need to be fixed in
 >> several packages.

 >  Although I'm not a fan of version choice at all, there may indeed be a point in
 > having a choice here, because of all the breakage that glibc introduces.

I am also not really in favor. Either we support a glibc version (and
fix whatever breakage it introduces) or we don't.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/{glibc, localedef}: bump to version 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Romain" == Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> writes:

Hi,

 > For toolchain-builder project, this means that the stable and bleeding-edge
 > toolchain use the same glibc version, unlike for other toolchain elements.

But maybe the stable toolchain should be built from the Buildroot LTS
instead of the "bleeding edge" Buildroot version?

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/{glibc, localedef}: bump to version 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c

[Romain Naour]

Hello Guo, Han,

Le 28/04/2021 ? 16:33, Guo Ren a ?crit?:
> 
> 
> Best Regards
>   Guo Ren
> 
> 
> 
>> ? 2021?4?27????4:05?Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com> ???
>>
>> Hello Arnout,
>>
>> Le 27/04/2021 ? 09:25, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit :
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26/04/2021 21:43, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>>>> Arnout, Romain, All,
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-04-26 21:36 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
>>>>> On 26/04/2021 12:10, Romain Naour wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> rename package/glibc/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/glibc.hash (70%)
>>>>>> rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0001-HACK-only-build-and-install-localedef.patch (100%)
>>>>>> rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/0002-relax-dependency-on-GCC-to-4.8-and-binutils-to-2.24.patch (100%)
>>>>>> rename package/localedef/{2.32-37-g760e1d287825fa91d4d5a0cc921340c740d803e2 => 2.33-37-g162df872f0dfc2b124a18e1a8c33be63f70d9a1c}/localedef.hash (70%)
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you're messing with these packages, maybe you can take the opportunity to
>>>>> get rid of the versioned subdirectory. That's a leftover from when we had
>>>>> version selection for glibc.
>>>>
>>>> We stil have a version choice for glibc; it's just not exposed to the
>>>> user: indeed we use different version for csky, riscv32, and the rest.
>>>>
>>>> So, we still do not want to apply the "generic" patches to the csky
>>>> fork, or to the riscv32 version...
>>>
>>> Ah, I missed the csky fork... The riscv32 one should be gone, so I thought that
>>> was it.
>>
>> The csky for is based on glibc 2.28 but csky was added to glibc 2.29
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=5f72b00591ce4d1b4c0418294ffe1623983d5679
>>
>> Maybe we can use upstream glibc?
> Cc glibc csky maintainer: Mao Han <han_mao@linux.alibaba.com> 

Same for binutils. We are using an old fork of binutils 2.27 for csky but we can
use binutils 2.32 to 2.36.
Please, help us to use upstream version.

> 
>> But we can't test with our Qemu version since csky is not yet upstream, we can
>> retrieve the csky qemu fork we had last year.
>>
> C-SKY qemu test:
> https://gitlab.com/c-sky/buildroot/-/jobs/1190489794
> 
> You can get qemu:
> https://gitlab.com/c-sky/buildroot/-/blob/master/package/qemu-enhanced/qemu-enhanced.mk

This is a prebuilt qemu binary I can use locally but it would be great if qemu
for csky could be built from sources.
Do you know if there is some news about csky contribution to Qemu ?

Best regards,
Romain