Missing error_print_progname in new snapshot.

Peter S. Mazinger ps.m at gmx.net
Mon Mar 27 13:10:16 UTC 2006


On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Steven J. Hill wrote:

> Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > 
> > I do not use buildroot myself, but I rebuild from time to time the whole 
> > gentoo build system and about 500 pkg (that I also use).
> >
> Which is the whole fricking point. THIS IS NOT GENTOO. THIS IS NOT GENTOO.
> People want and expect buildroot to work with uClibc out of the box. That
> means if you make a change and it removes something that breaks buildroot,
> then YOU figure out and provide the patch. Take responsibility for your
> actions. If you want to get things cleanded up, then do a complete build and
> fix the packages that are effected. Otherwise, leave things alone. I will
> revert your change so that Khem can build. If you want 'error_print_progname'
> removed, YOU take the time to figure out how to fix gettext in the buildroot
> system. Building your 500 gazillion packages for gentoo doesn't mean squat.
> Buildroot should always work no matter what gets checked into uClibc. Period.
> It is not Khem's responsibility to fix this.
> 
> -Steve

Why should a header provide a prototype for something that is not in 
libc.so? Why should libc.so provide a dummy error_print_progname() to get 
any app compiling? If someone takes the time to provide a correction to 
error.c to have real error_print_progname(), then it has a use to enable 
it, but until then you can add the = NULL; dummy to the non-working app as 
well.

from TODO:

Audit header files. Remove prototypes for all functions that are not 
supported ...

Peter

-- 
Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net>           ID: 0xA5F059F2
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08  BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2




More information about the uClibc mailing list