[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2014-11-19
Peter Korsgaard
peter at korsgaard.com
Thu Nov 20 10:48:41 UTC 2014
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> writes:
Hi,
>> > The uClibc bug about setreuid().
>>
>> > What do we do about this one? It still isn't fixed upstream. Should we
>> > simply disable uClibc for static builds? (But then we would only have
>> > musl left as a C library compatible with static builds). Or do we
>> > simply blacklist for now the packages that are known to use the symbols
>> > causing problems?
>>
>> > Peter?
>>
>> uClibc with static linking is useful for quite some setups, so I would
>> find it a pity to globally disable it. Let's just disable the affected
>> packages with a comment.
> So you suggest to disable them within Buildroot, or through an
> exception in the autobuild-run script?
> Advantage of doing it in the autobuild-run script: we don't need to
> propagate to all the reverse dependencies. The script will exclude any
> configuration that has the problematic package selected with a uClibc
> toolchain.
> Drawback of doing it in the autobuild-run script: normal users of
> Buildroot may run into the issue.
Is there other packages than cdrkit? If the packages don't have huge
reverse dependencies then I would prefer to disable them in Buildroot.
>> >> sh4a | qt-4.8.6 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/119adf6a31266e71e45fb1951d7e8ebbd1ff41fe/
>>
>> > Bug in the CodeSourcery SH4 toolchain. I don't think we have any other
>> > solution than blacklisting configurations that contain Qt4 Webkit and
>> > that use this toolchain. Opinions?
>>
>> Yes, I also think we should just blacklist it.
> I'll add an exception to the autobuilder then.
Why not to buildroot? It's a toolchain we have a preset for, right?
--
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
More information about the buildroot
mailing list