Another problem is that who will run those tests with musl regularly and ensure they won't regress again? We don't do it, upstream doesn't do it, so then why spend time fixing them?
Alex On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 at 20:18, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I hack on elfutils upstream. > > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 06:32:40PM +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 at 18:15, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Rework support for error() on non-glibc targets: > > > > > upstream now provides its own implementation, so we can drop > > > > > the patch that adds ours; said implementation isn't > > > > > build-tested with tests, so ptest has to be disabled on musl. > > > > > > > > Overall this is an improvement so I am good with this patch. > > > > if upstream implementation does not pass ptests > > > > perhaps worth reporting upstream. > > > > > > I would if upstream would be interested in tests with anything except > > > glibc, but I'm fairly sure they're not. The tests don't even build with > > > musl without invasive patching. > > > > If you don't report issues we won't know there are any. elfutils > > upstream is certainly focussed on glibc. And some of the musl > > developers are pretty hostile and agresssive, which certainly isn't > > appreciated. But we do appreciate bug reports and patches to support > > alternative libc implementations where they make sense and help > > others. > > Thanks Mark, good point about creating bug reports at least. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Mark > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#158457): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/158457 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/87121996/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
