On Tue, 2015-04-14 at 13:40 -0400, Khem Raj wrote: > > On Apr 14, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaski...@linux.intel.com> > > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > oe-core's version of glibc allows configuring out some libc > features. Currently, if a feature is disabled in glibc, glibc still > installs the header for that feature. This means that applications > using glibc can't rely on checking just the header presence in their > configure scripts, they also need to check whether the function > implementation is present. Is there some good reason why glibc works > that way, or should glibc be fixed so that disabling a feature > disables the header too? > > > > At least alsa-lib requires patching[1] for this reason, and I > wouldn't be surprised if there were many other similar cases in other > packages. > > > > [1] > > http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/tree/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-lib/Check-if-wordexp-function-is-supported.patch > > > > checking for functions is the right thing. And it would fail to link > if you passed configure check.
Thanks for the quick reply. Could you elaborate why checking for functions is the right thing? If that's the right thing, then I should send that alsa-lib patch to upstream, and I want to be able to explain why the patch is not a workaround for oe-core's glibc brokenness. -- Tanu -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
