[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 21:49:41 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: iproute2 & other software
* Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden@...il.com> [2016-03-02 19:19:13 +0000]:
> "
> Sorry, I have to reject this.
> All include files in include/linux come from headers automatically
> generated from upstream
> Linux source. This is the only way to ensure long term ABI/API consistency
> with kernel.
>
> Either fix musl or submit patches to upstream kernel and get them merged.
> "
>
> Can we look into providing somekind of compatibility layer for header files
> so that it's easier to get upstream projects like iproute2 to support musl ?
>
in theory the correct solution is to fix the kernel headers
so they don't collide with posix types in libc headers.
in practice old kernel headers should work too and it's unlikely
that a complete uapi fix would be accepted into linux any time
soon so applications should avoid including both libc and kernel
headers into the same tu.
unfortunately glibc added workarounds into libc and uapi headers
that make it seem as if mixing linux and libc headers work, so
now application programmers don't have the incentive to fix this.
musl cannot use the same workarounds because they use ifdef __GLIBC__
(which is a major bug for linux uapi headers to depend on):
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/uapi/linux/libc-compat.h
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.
