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.