| 1 |
On 1/8/17 3:56 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 1/8/17 1:50 PM, Aric Belsito wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 11:33:34AM +0100, Felix Janda wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 12/23/16 1:11 PM, Felix Janda wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> Aric Belsito wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>>> This is mostly a question for Blueness, but in the Gentoo repository, we |
| 8 |
>>>>>> currently have sys-libs/fts-standalone -- but I cannot link elfutils |
| 9 |
>>>>>> against it (build-time issues). |
| 10 |
>>>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>>>> On the other hand, there is the musl-fts library |
| 12 |
>>>>>> (https://github.com/pullmoll/musl-fts) which does work (and I currently |
| 13 |
>>>>>> have in the musl-extras repository) but as Blueness put the |
| 14 |
>>>>>> fts-standalone package into the gentoo repository, is the maintainer, |
| 15 |
>>>>>> and wrote it, it seemed like a bad idea to use musl-fts instead. I'd |
| 16 |
>>>>>> like some advice. |
| 17 |
>>>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>>>> The main reason I ask is because in updating sys-fs/f2fs-tools, it gains |
| 19 |
>>>>>> the sys-libs/libselinux dependency, which won't build on musl without |
| 20 |
>>>>>> fts. IcedTea, Chromium, and SystemTap also require elfutils. |
| 21 |
>>>>> A while ago, I've reported to blueness the duplication between |
| 22 |
>>>>> musl-fts and fts-standalone: |
| 23 |
>>>>> |
| 24 |
>>>>> https://github.com/blueness/fts-standalone/issues/1 |
| 25 |
>>>>> |
| 26 |
>>>>> Thanks for bringing this up again (and your working ebuild for it). |
| 27 |
>>>>> |
| 28 |
>>>>> |
| 29 |
>>>>> I also wanted to note that there is now a bug for elfutils with musl: |
| 30 |
>>>>> |
| 31 |
>>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=602126 |
| 32 |
>>>>> |
| 33 |
>>>>> Felix |
| 34 |
>>>>> |
| 35 |
>>>> I don't have any strong feeling about musl-fts vs fts-standalone. What |
| 36 |
>>>> are your preferences and why? |
| 37 |
>>> I also do not have any strong preferences. |
| 38 |
>>> |
| 39 |
>>> Since musl-fts seems to be in wider usage, and fts-standalone has caused |
| 40 |
>>> some trouble for Aric, I would prefer using musl-fts. |
| 41 |
>>> |
| 42 |
>>> Best, |
| 43 |
>>> Felix |
| 44 |
>>> |
| 45 |
>> I would prefer to use musl-fts as it is used by both Alpine and Void, so |
| 46 |
>> it makes maintenance a bit easier -- and for the reason that I mentioned |
| 47 |
>> earlier -- I couldn't get it to link with elfutils (though it may be |
| 48 |
>> possible to get it to work). |
| 49 |
>> |
| 50 |
>> In the meantime while we phase out fts-standalone, I can move over |
| 51 |
>> packages in the Gentoo tree that depend on it such as app-arch/pax |
| 52 |
>> (which isn't building right now anyway). |
| 53 |
>> |
| 54 |
> The name of the package is unfortunate. Would it be possible to bump |
| 55 |
> the fts-standalone ebuild in the tree and get it to pull from musl-fts |
| 56 |
> repo? The reason is we've been using *-standalone in gentoo for the |
| 57 |
> name of breakout packages. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Aric, would it cause you a problem if I bump the in-tree version of |
| 60 |
fts-standalone to build musl-fts and then we transition to that |
| 61 |
eventually? I use this package for my uclibc systems too and I'd like |
| 62 |
to keep consistency. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
-- |
| 66 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D. |
| 67 |
Chair of Information Technology |
| 68 |
D'Youville College |
| 69 |
Buffalo, NY 14201 |
| 70 |
(716) 829-8197 |
Archives