[Buildroot] [PATCH] host-localedef: Compile against glibc-2.29

[Samuel Mendoza-Jonas]

On Mon, 2019-06-24 at 20:52 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> > > > > > "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni at bootlin.com> writes:
> 
>  > Hello,
>  > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:07:07 +1000
>  > Samuel Mendoza-Jonas <sam at mendozajonas.com> wrote:
> 
>  >> In glibc 2.27 the following change occurred:
>  >> "Statically compiled applications attempting to load locales compiled
>  >> for the GNU C Library version 2.27 will fail and fall back to the
>  >> builtin C/POSIX locale."
>  >> 
>  >> This impacts us since upstream buildroot uses a localdef built against
>  >> an older eglibc release [0].
>  >> 
>  >> This is a combination of my patch to move to glibc and Peter Seiderer's
>  >> patch to avoid building all of glibc just for localedef.
>  >> 
>  >> [0] https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=11096
>  >> 
>  >> Signed-off-by: Samuel Mendoza-Jonas <sam at mendozajonas.com>
>  >> [localedef build & fixups:]
>  >> Signed-off-by: Peter Seiderer <ps.report at gmx.net>
>  >> ---
>  >> This is an update to a previous very similar patch, but updated for
>  >> glibc 2.29 now that Buildroot has moved to it.
> 
>  > So, since it's been a problem pending for way too long, I applied your
>  > patch to master. I however did a change: make sure we re-use the glibc
>  > tarball if possible. To do this:
> 
>  >  - I defined LOCALEDEF_SOURCE = glibc-$(LOCALEDEF_VERSION).tar.gz and
>  >    HOST_LOCALEDEF_DL_SUBDIR = glibc
> 
>  >  - I changed the hash file because the tarball is now named
>  >    glibc-<version>.tar.gz
> 
>  > I also wondered about making localedef.hash a symlink to glibc.hash,
>  > but that would require updating the symlink everything the glibc
>  > version is updated, because glibc.hash is in a version-specific folder.
> 
>  > Overall, I am wondering if we shouldn't give up on this host-localedef
>  > package and in fact move this to a host-glibc package. Indeed that's
>  > really what we're doing here: build a host-glibc package.
> 
>  > The only issue with doing this is the "HACK" patch. Indeed, how to make
>  > sure this patch will apply to all glibc versions we support ?
> 
>  > But since the locale problem has been around for a long time, I
>  > preferred to apply your approach now, we can always improve things
>  > later if we think it's useful.
> 
> Committed to 2019.05.x, thanks.
> 
> 2019.02.x is using glibc-2.28. Is using this 2.29-based localedef the
> right solution for 2019.02.x, or should we be using something 2.28
> based?
> 

I've not tested with a localedef ahead of glibc, but if we want to fix up
2019.02 as well then basically the same patch minus the 2.28->2.29
updates should work fine, eg:
https://github.com/sammj/buildroot/commit/7fedd772a6caac0cbc69a90a8c1da8c142eae9ac

(not directly tested, but that's the same as what we've been running in our
 2019.02-based op-build tree)

Cheers,
Sam