[OE-core] musl thoughts

[Andreas Müller]

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:16 PM Adrian Bunk <bunk at stusta.de> 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 <net/ethernet.h>
> +#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