On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:53:03AM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
> On 3/21/19 6:11 PM, Andreas Müller wrote:
>...
> > As you might guess I'd prefer 3 because:
> > + Many patches can go and don't need maintenance on upstream refactoring
> > anymore
> > + Burden for people sending patches would be reduced
> > + Recipes not building with musl currently might work without further
> > modification
> > + Just in case musl stops (we have seen this before with others e.g
> > ulibc) the cleanup would be reduced
>
> Didn't we do something like this with glibc? We carried several patches
> that where rejected and just recently got removed so there is a
> precedent for carrying OE specific changes so it seems like a
> reasonable approach.
The glibc patches that got removed were patches where it can be
questioned whether they should have ever been applied.
glibc still carries far too many patches that simply shouldn't be there.
All this is different from the musl situation where some kind of
patching is required somewhere at least short-term.
> - armin
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
