ash backticks busted in 1.2.2.1

[Denis Vlasenko]

On Monday 06 November 2006 03:41, Jason Schoon wrote:
> On 11/5/06, Bennett Todd <bet at rahul.net> wrote:
> >
> > 2006-11-01T22:33:36 Bennett Todd:
> > > I'll try rebuilding 1.2.2.1 on my home uclibc-based distro (in
> > > a few days, I'm afraid), and will send another note if I can
> > > reproduce the problem there, otherwise we'll happily blame it on
> > > glibc.
> >
> > Just recompiled, noticed something odd. It printed:
> >
> >   LINK busybox_unstripped
> > /var/tmp/bpmbuild.28871/build/busybox-1.2.2.1/applets/applets.c:21:2:
> > warning: #warning Static linking against glibc produces buggy executables
> > /var/tmp/bpmbuild.28871/build/busybox-1.2.2.1/applets/applets.c:22:2:
> > warning: #warning See sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3400
> > /var/tmp/bpmbuild.28871/build/busybox-1.2.2.1/applets/applets.c:23:2:
> > warning: #warning Note that glibc is utterly unsuitable for static linking
> > anyway.
> >
> > This despite the fact that the chroot jail where I built it has no
> > glibc.
> 
> 
> Agreed, I don't believe the check for toolchain is being done correctly.  I
> get this warning when I cross-compile using my uclibc toolchain to do a
> static build as well.

The check is just:

#if ENABLE_STATIC && defined(__GLIBC__)

So, does uclibc define __GLIBC__ (it well might be forced to,
due to some bug-for-bug compatibility needs)? If it is so,
then please try

#if ENABLE_STATIC && (defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__UCLIBC__))

instead, and let me know.
--
vda