Re: [gentoo-musl] Which FTS library to use?

[Lluixhi Scura]

No, it shouldn't make a difference.

On Jan 8, 2017 14:36, "Anthony G. Basile" <basile@××××××××××××××.edu> wrote:

> On 1/8/17 3:56 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> > On 1/8/17 1:50 PM, Aric Belsito wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 11:33:34AM +0100, Felix Janda wrote:
> >>> Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> >>>> On 12/23/16 1:11 PM, Felix Janda wrote:
> >>>>> Aric Belsito wrote:
> >>>>>> This is mostly a question for Blueness, but in the Gentoo
> repository, we
> >>>>>> currently have sys-libs/fts-standalone -- but I cannot link elfutils
> >>>>>> against it (build-time issues).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On the other hand, there is the musl-fts library
> >>>>>> (https://github.com/pullmoll/musl-fts) which does work (and I
> currently
> >>>>>> have in the musl-extras repository) but as Blueness put the
> >>>>>> fts-standalone package into the gentoo repository, is the
> maintainer,
> >>>>>> and wrote it, it seemed like a bad idea to use musl-fts instead. I'd
> >>>>>> like some advice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The main reason I ask is because in updating sys-fs/f2fs-tools, it
> gains
> >>>>>> the sys-libs/libselinux dependency, which won't build on musl
> without
> >>>>>> fts. IcedTea, Chromium, and SystemTap also require elfutils.
> >>>>> A while ago, I've reported to blueness the duplication between
> >>>>> musl-fts and fts-standalone:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://github.com/blueness/fts-standalone/issues/1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for bringing this up again (and your working ebuild for it).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I also wanted to note that there is now a bug for elfutils with musl:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=602126
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Felix
> >>>>>
> >>>> I don't have any strong feeling about musl-fts vs fts-standalone.
> What
> >>>> are your preferences and why?
> >>> I also do not have any strong preferences.
> >>>
> >>> Since musl-fts seems to be in wider usage, and fts-standalone has
> caused
> >>> some trouble for Aric, I would prefer using musl-fts.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Felix
> >>>
> >> I would prefer to use musl-fts as it is used by both Alpine and Void, so
> >> it makes maintenance a bit easier -- and for the reason that I mentioned
> >> earlier -- I couldn't get it to link with elfutils (though it may be
> >> possible to get it to work).
> >>
> >> In the meantime while we phase out fts-standalone, I can move over
> >> packages in the Gentoo tree that depend on it such as app-arch/pax
> >> (which isn't building right now anyway).
> >>
> > The name of the package is unfortunate.  Would it be possible to bump
> > the fts-standalone ebuild in the tree and get it to pull from musl-fts
> > repo?  The reason is we've been using *-standalone in gentoo for the
> > name of breakout packages.
>
> Aric, would it cause you a problem if I bump the in-tree version of
> fts-standalone to build musl-fts and then we transition to that
> eventually?  I use this package for my uclibc systems too and I'd like
> to keep consistency.
>
>
> --
> Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
> Chair of Information Technology
> D'Youville College
> Buffalo, NY 14201
> [phone]
>
>