Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:44:33 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Is "memory.h" wanted? On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 06:37:10PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote: > I recently tried building OpenSSL, and it failed to build due to a > missing "memory.h". > At the time, I just sidelined the project. > > Since then, I have looked at the glibc version; it amounts to > #include <features.h> > #include <string.h> > > Which, IIRC, means a BSD-flavored/other legacy string.h > Is this header desired for compatability, or should code using it be considered > non-conformant and patched? Probably both, i.e. we should add it and OpenSSL should be patched. In the long term I'm thinking about adding #warning to all of the nonsensical legacy headers and wrong-location headers (missing sys/- prefix or incorrect sys/- prefix) to help track down and correct such errors in programs. > Also, have any SSL libraries (besides openssh internal) have been > verified to work with musl? I have bitlbee and irssi both linked with OpenSSL and haven't had any problems with them, but I haven't tried all the features that depend on SSL. I think GNU TLS built correctly too but I gave up on trying to use it when software kept wanting more and more other libs along with it - some GPG-internal libs if I remember right... Rich
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.