[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] package/util-linux: Fix libmount build under uClibc

[Waldemar Brodkorb]

Hi Alexey,

Alexey Brodkin wrote,

> Hi Waldemar,
> 
> On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 14:12 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 14:55 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 17:46 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This fixes util-linux building with uClibc.
> > > > Patch is taken as it is from Buildroot:
> > > > https://git.busybox.net/buildroot/plain/package/util-linux/0001-Fix-libmount-build-under-uClibc.patch?id=baccb506a
> > > > 6f
> > > > ea
> > > > bf114623866568121f49712f5df
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin at synopsys.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../004-Fix-libmount-build-under-uClibc.patch      | 153 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 153 insertions(+)
> > > >  create mode 100644 package/utils/util-linux/patches/004-Fix-libmount-build-under-uClibc.patch
> 
> We are discussing one issue with "util-linux" package building.
> The problem is in "util-linux" wants to use alloc modifier (either "%as"
> or "%ms") in scanf().
> 
> Looks like uClibc still doesn't support neither "%ms" nor "%as" (this one
> is obsolete glibc-specific so let's not bother with it anyways).
> 
> Now to work-around this missing requirement we used to use
> an off-the-tree patch like this one in Buildroot:
> https://git.busybox.net/buildroot/tree/package/util-linux/0001-Fix-libmount-build-under-uClibc.patch
> 
> OpenWRT:
> https://git.lede-project.org/?p=source.git;a=blob;f=package/utils/util-linux/patches/001-no-printf-alloc.patch;h=ad9eef0
> 959bf0c8ce269e8039d4d05ef58e1d527;hb=8a7b28071fba84e297796c46d46e12b0967804e8
> 
> Gentoo:
> https://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/util-linux/files/util-linux-2.21.1-no-printf-alloc.pat
> ch?revision=1.2
> 
> The question to you is where do you think we should fix mentioned problem:
>  1) In uClibc-ng with addition of "%ms" support in scanf or

I would prefer this solution. I have started reading the code, but I
can't give you any guarantee when I can work on this.
Do you have free resources to cook up a patch? :)

>  2) Try to upstream mentioned patch in "util-linux"?

best regards
 Waldemar