On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:14:08PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Paul Barker <p...@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: > >> That would be handy too. But I wanted was to keep this info in project > >> for folks to try it out. > >> > > > > I'll just post one ticket for now. > > > > Thats fine too. > > > I think I've got a fix for e2fsprogs as well. > > Great. when we write patches that arise out of musl systems we should > make sure that > > 1. If patch fixes a genuine issue surfaced with musl, fight it out ar > respective package upstream and in OE universe add it to the original > layer where recipe primarily resides > but we can keep the patches in meta-musl as a last resort. > > 2. If its something musl specific then lets keep it in meta-musl and > see how musl can be changed to fix it. > > Thanks > -Khem
That makes sense. I'd suggest adding that to the README file in meta-musl so other would-be-contributors notice it. In this case, it's ensuring that 'uint64_t' is used instead of '__uint64_t' and that <limits.h> is included where needed for 'PATH_MAX'. So I'd say those fixes belong in oe-core and are candidates for submitting upstream. Thanks, -- Paul Barker Email: p...@paulbarker.me.uk http://www.paulbarker.me.uk
pgpSGgmguSD42.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
