There is an open issue upstream:
https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/-/issues/193

I'm fine if this is deferred until upstream sorts it out.

Alex

On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 23:47, Richard Purdie <
richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 2021-02-28 at 11:10 -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> >
> > On 2/28/21 7:36 AM, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >   .../procps/0001-w.c-correct-musl-builds.patch | 44
> +++++++++++++++++++
> > >   ...02-proc-escape.c-add-missing-include.patch | 23 ++++++++++
> > >   .../{procps_3.3.16.bb => procps_3.3.17.bb}    |  4 +-
> > >   3 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >   create mode 100644
> meta/recipes-extended/procps/procps/0001-w.c-correct-musl-builds.patch
> > >   create mode 100644
> meta/recipes-extended/procps/procps/0002-proc-escape.c-add-missing-include.patch
> > >   rename meta/recipes-extended/procps/{procps_3.3.16.bb =>
> procps_3.3.17.bb} (94%)
> > >
> > > diff --git
> a/meta/recipes-extended/procps/procps/0001-w.c-correct-musl-builds.patch
> b/meta/recipes-extended/procps/procps/0001-w.c-correct-musl-builds.patch
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000000..c92ad28e4f
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++
> b/meta/recipes-extended/procps/procps/0001-w.c-correct-musl-builds.patch
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
> > > +From 22f8d25567b8d64bdbab0fb0b4915b4362561d9b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > +From: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com>
> > > +Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 21:14:31 +0000
> > > +Subject: [PATCH] w.c: correct musl builds
> > > +
> > > +No need to redefine UT_ stuff to something that does not exist.
> > > +
> > > +UT_ is already provided in musl but via utmp.h header, so include
> > > +it always.
> > > +
> > > +Upstream-Status: Submitted [
> https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/-/merge_requests/126]
> > > +Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com>
> > > +---
> > > + w.c | 9 +--------
> > > + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > +
> > > +diff --git a/w.c b/w.c
> > > +index 9d07ac9..d10639b 100644
> > > +--- a/w.c
> > > ++++ b/w.c
> > > +@@ -57,9 +57,8 @@
> > > + #include <unistd.h>
> > > + #ifdef HAVE_UTMPX_H
> > > + # include <utmpx.h>
> > > +-#else
> > > +-# include <utmp.h>
> > > + #endif
> > > ++#include <utmp.h>
> >
> > this would mean when utmpx.h is provided ( e.g. ) it will now include
> > both, which is a change perhaps to look more into, it might want them to
> > be exclusive.
>
> This one is worrying me a bit as it does seem to change behaviour on glibc.
> Was anyone able to look into it further?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>