Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:42:48 +0100 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: _PATH_LASTLOG * Raphael Cohn <raphael.cohn@...rmmq.com> [2013-12-03 17:44:04 +0000]: > I'm trying to compile linux-pam 1.1.8 using musl-cross, and I've hit a > compilation error in modules/pam_lastlog/pam_lastlog.c > > Essentially, this code includes the clib utmp.h (based on HAVE_UTMP_H) and > then assumes _PATH_LASTLOG is defined. > > utmp.h doesn't define this macro, but does define _PATH_UTMP and > _PATH_WTMP. Should it? (And why are they set to /dev/null/xxx )? the utmp business should be added to the faq.. and probably to the differences compared to glibc page as well utmp.h was never part of any standard so it can contain anything it could include paths.h (all the macros there are in the reserved name space anyway), glibc does include paths.h there and the bsds define _PATH_LASTLOG the musl paths.h has _PATH_LASTLOG defined twice the "/dev/null/xxx" is a file that's guaranteed to fail to get opened or unlinked
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.