[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package/runc: add an option to build a non-static runc
James Peach
jorgar at gmail.com
Mon Oct 28 10:33:43 UTC 2019
> On Oct 26, 2019, at 8:19 AM, James Peach <jorgar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 26, 2019, at 3:45 AM, Peter Korsgaard <peter at korsgaard.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> If yes, what is the advantage of linking runc statically?
>
> I don’t know why this package was originally linking statically, which was why I kept the default. I didn’t want to break someone’s use case that I didn’t know about :)
>
> Your question make we go check upstream, and the build tag was introduced to fix a build warning about a dependency on dlopen:
>
> https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/commit/e9944d0f4cebd26f27fdb7407740c32a9194c386
>
> However, I don’t think that upstream needs this any more so maybe I can remove the build tag from the systemd integration.
I experimented a bit more with this. IIUC the Go builder for runc doesn’t actually build a static binary and the systemd driver build no longer fails when you do force a static binary, so I submitted a PR to upstream to remove the `static_build` build tag.
I think that we can just drop this patch. I’m just filtering out the bad build tag before I run buildroot. If upstream take my PR, this will be fixed when buildroot updates runc.
J
More information about the buildroot
mailing list