From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it1-f193.google.com (mail-it1-f193.google.com [209.85.166.193]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8E865CE9 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 21:22:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it1-f193.google.com with SMTP id m137so8731580ita.0 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 14:22:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ddhgyAy/7q3BjmdxDRcogpfTiO19pz92H89/6v01DRM=; b=ioChMPc7H/OTaEe2vhANF0rWDovpTHvp629ZCSs35U3j8Se+VeI0S0Elh/m2xer7uB rbNDEX+kTSzQkKeStoQZ3MnWqEaDgb6V60xjzeQXx4dBVsckb3tMgcP20RvSBDdpwv22 Dgr1d0PvMcXDdSBrCwVGqFIkNdcILB6C03kSHiR60hyYzjpgU9Mjn4xlUO/k39STUGdz awyjylDP4PNBdmHeVEN91io2QPp4WcsnoLnkb/8WufVNTvEgxEnnzXS+Mw34wT9VJjNG 5IPQvnEuzHT9K7HWY34Mx7LFx0ZghrQMmU6rqTUcLge+5P6ShHJxFu30k01Uu09nlTPK 4AWA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ddhgyAy/7q3BjmdxDRcogpfTiO19pz92H89/6v01DRM=; b=SqXeU41yuI67oXM90RHceE1I+uBvmgMwFzY7sCsECIQGHmqXh4AUZGxuJC1q5bFkSj 4K5TlcTa6OKYIOgK3FpoW2PgNIAbnXaqArhknMOrgYC0/aQao0PZ12STcG7IkM9pPBfp VjnGUhlPZvYVmCXf52Nd1vFpy9Kb9qKl6onpf0ltTUp6tbUvlZqPdmZTdNnnd2AYc0OH A6jHJMK2YSeUgCVOB+Z4cz2qUQyJ3FVCOCI+d5UfLm2R1dGU1aWYughxZzXhuopb3Bt+ h5+lNMV5gaGRLLK6WSIkCEfKvwxXAJSVNPvuoZv7/sv7/fZOEFBhPZluvRD7pnM+8avT 7CTw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVmYU4amZmtrWF14RJlVbaqHWXdClE5VywLgsFQilhdypVqTt8C K2mg69NnUytgpypmlvlbkPiOf7bVEFoJcmJqKdA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzY56spyn2rnzyTLW2Bab/FY4rLrj+IkR8JbevnL2g2yA7mlPpv4ff4FnwwveHFWfNnlTgUrp+bgq7e3F3HId8= X-Received: by 2002:a24:c8c5:: with SMTP id w188mr6640437itf.1.1553376147424; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 14:22:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190323211604.GA20793@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20190323211604.GA20793@localhost> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_M=C3=BCller?= Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:22:15 +0100 Message-ID: To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: musl thoughts X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 21:22:26 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:16 PM Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 03:18:01PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > >... > > There are certain design aspects of musl which are actually turning > > out to be good > > e.g. there is no __MUSL__ define, so non-portable code can not be > > hidden which is a good thing, > >... > > Please take a closer look at some of the musl changes to NM that made > upgrading NM so hard for Andreas. > > +#if defined(__GLIBC__) > #include > +#else /* musl libc */ > +#define ETH_ALEN 6 /* Octets in one ethernet addr */ > +#endif > > Using __GLIBC__ in workarounds for bugs in musl is wrong, > and cannot be upstreamed since it would do the wrong thing > on other non-broken C libraries. > > > While the eyes may hurt > > to see them, it does serve a > > good reminder of whats needed for a given package. > >... > > Who is responsible for fixing the root causes of such bugs in musl, > so that the workaround patches can be dropped from packages like NM? > > cu > Adrian If I am not mistaken nobody is responsible. It is recipe wise: Sending out a patch that fails for musl is rejected usually. The last example could be fixed easily at musl shipping a ethernet.h containing #define ETH_ALEN 6 or at NM #ifndef ETH_ALEN #define ETH_ALEN 6 #endif Andreas