[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ec529702be11fefd204b3056086af86@openmailbox.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 04:33:12 +0100
From: Peter Smith <aic0azee@...nmailbox.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Patching kernel headers?
On 2015-03-11 17:14, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Peter Smith <aic0azee@...nmailbox.org> [2015-03-11 16:33:54 +0100]:
>> I have built a toolchain with GCC 4.7.3, musl 1.1.6 and Linux 3.12
>> kernel
>> headers. I then tried to compile Busybox 1.23.1 without patching the
>> toolchain kernel headers, as described here:
>> http://wiki.musl-libc.org/wiki/Building_Busybox and the build was
>> still
>> successful.
>>
>> Does this mean that patching the kernel headers is no longer
>> necessary?
>
> did you use an allyes busybox config?
>
> only some of the tools use conflicting headers
>
> (some kernel headers are incompatible with libc headers
> busybox might got fixed not to include those but other
> code may still need the patched kernel headers)
I have now investigated further, and both the current and previous
version of Busybox will build without patching the kernel headers, when
using my custom Busybox config. If I try to build Busybox with an allyes
config it will fail. Nothing has changed, I have just found out that my
specific Busybox config will work without patching the kernel headers.
Are there any reasons for me to patch the kernel headers now that I
found out Busybox will build anyway? Could other applications require
the headers to be patched?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
