no signature for 1.2.2.1?

[Rob Landley]

On Sunday 05 November 2006 4:38 pm, Bennett Todd wrote:
> My software packaging / automated build was expecting
> http://www.busybox.net/downloads/busybox-1.2.2.1.tar.bz2.sign
> but didn't find it.
> 
> -Bennett

I didn't put that one out, Denis did.  My last release was 1.2.2, and I didn't 
notice that it was triggering the glibc static linking bug.  (Which is a bug 
in glibc, not in busybox, but we're triggering it.)

The proper fix is not to use --gc-sections when statically linking against 
glibc, although detecting glibc at build time turns out to be non-trivial.  
Instead Denis put in a warning.  As far as I know, the _only_ difference 
between 1.2.2 and 1.2.2.1 is the warning.  It doesn't actually fix anything, 
just warns you about a prominent glibc bug.  (Which the glibc guys refuse to 
fix since they insist it's a gcc bug, which it isn't.)

Rob
-- 
"Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but
when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery