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

[John Crispin]

On 02/06/2016 13:00, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Waldemar,
> 
> On Wed, 2016-06-01 at 19:28 +0200, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
>> 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=baccb
>>>>>> 506a
>>>>>> 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 is obsolete glibc-specific so let's not bother with it anyways).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=ad9
>>> eef0
>>> 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? :)
> 
> You mean if I'm up to implement this missing feature in uClibc?
> Well I'd like to but as well not sure if and when I have time for that :)
> 
> For now we have a work-around with mentioned patches. So that's not a showstopper.
> 
> -Alexey
> 

well,t he requirement for keeping uclibc support in the tree is that
people fix uclibc issues. so someone has to fix it. waldemar promised to
address uclibc issues if we use his ng tree.

	John