[OE-core] musl thoughts

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:03 PM Adrian Bunk <bunk at stusta.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 02:11:35AM +0100, Andreas Müller wrote:
> >...
> > 3. Change our musl slightly: Many patches we currently have are
> > trivial. Missing headers or #defines for missing functions... So if we
> > add few headers
> >   * Empty chunks for e.g <net/ethernet.h>
> >...
> > Some other ideas?
>
> Not upstreamable hacks aren't a long-term sustainable way,
> no matter where you do the patching.
>
> net/ethernet.h header problems are requiring 2 patches in NM.
>
> It would be good to get whatever is the actual root cause fixed properly,
> and that fix upstreamed.
>
> E.g. I wonder whether this was supposed to be fixed by
> 0001-if_ether-move-muslc-ethhdr-protection-to-uapi-file.patch
>
> Or is this patch in linux-libc-headers even the cause of the problem?
>
> linux-libc-headers applying 6 patches just for musl is not a good sign
> in any case.
> Is that much patching also done by other distributions that use musl?
> Why are these patches Upstream-Status: Pending/Submitted for a  long
> time without having been applied upstream?
>
> Long-term it would be less work if everything would get fixed properly
> with fixes reviewed and applied by upstream.
>

agreed, meanwhile we have to also ensure that musl users keep going and make it
possible, if OE devs are fixing musl related issues in upstream
packages then it is also
good reputation for the project. The real thing is to find time and
propose the patches upstream
more than often they get accepted.

> > Andreas
> >...
>
> cu
> Adrian
>
> --
>
>        "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
>         of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
>        "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
>                                        Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
>