[Buildroot] [PATCH v2] util-linux: fix ncurses/wchar handling (again)

[Marcus Hoffmann <m.hoffmann@cartelsol.com>]

On 17.01.2017 06:44, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:03:53 -0200, Carlos Santos wrote:
>> util-linux #defines "wchar_t" as "char" when configured without widechar
>> support. This conflicts with definition of wchar_t contained in stddef.h,
>> so the compilation fails with
>>
>>     error: two or more data types in declaration specifiers
>>     #define
>>      wchar_t char
>>
>> The error can be avoided by rearranging the inclusion order in some files
>> under the text-utils directory.
>>
>> Fixes:
>>
>>   http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/3a2f228e0fa7b5cc28a13d49f48f1a6aef8d9d7a
>>   http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/99e96069f652d511c6212a5bb6be29e68fb1747c
>>   http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/2dc5721aef93b7b410153bafad78248fac3db941
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br>
> 
> I tried to fix the same problem in commit
> 5a18eabdf08564688761a9b2f35892d69d8f9a18, but apparently failed at
> taking into account all the possible situations.
> 
> So if we are going to merge a different solution, I'd like to see an
> investigation of whether commit
> 5a18eabdf08564688761a9b2f35892d69d8f9a18 is still needed or not. If
> it's not, then it should be reverted as well.
> 
> I must say I find the fix of playing with the ordering of includes to
> be somewhat hackish. Do we have a better solution? Is it really legal
> for util-linux to redefine wchar_t? Should it use a better autoconf
> check before doing this?

Maybe we should ask the util-linux list? There's often an active
discussion, on what is the correct way to handle such things.

Marcus

> 
> Thomas
>