-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 43
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Musl fixes #490
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Musl fixes #490
Conversation
Ever since an old patch version, it has (for reasonable security reasons) not supported patched with ../ in the filename. Many of our patches have been relying on this behaviour being OK, because we start off with an ancient patch version that didn't perform such checks. As soon as we need this behaviour after we build a newer patch though, we will have problems. So, let's change the policy. Patches are relative to where tarballs are extracted, rather than the "working directory" - e.g. have patches for `coreutils-9.4/src/cp.c` instead of `src/cp.c`. Keeping this consistent has a few implications; - patches are applied from the build/ directory in bash era now, with `-p0` - when patches are manually applied in the bash era, use `-p` as required, usually `-p1` - in kaem era where patches are always manually applied, `-p1` is used
Some pregenerated header files exist in the src/ctype and src/locale directories. They are generated by out-of-tree code found on GitHub, musl-chartable-tools. This causes a slight reordering of the early bootstrap, as the early environment is quite spartan and has broken/missing tools to regenerate these files. With an added rebuild everything works fine.
22ddeb1
to
1cdb2fe
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FWIW, I am not entirely happy with the licensing state of musl-chartable-tools.
richfelker/musl-chartable-tools#3 strongly implies to me that the author intends for it to be MIT licensed, yet there is a second contributor and no license in the repository.
Should we contact the author? Thoughts?
Yes, they should either add a license to the repository or at least the 2nd author should clarify... |
Depends on #489