[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170421144151.GF17319@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:41:51 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, dwmw2@...radead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jarod@...hat.com, jogo@...nwrt.org, david.heidelberger@...t.cz,
maillist-linux@...fooze.de, mikko.rapeli@....fi,
musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] uapi glibc compat: fix musl libc
compatibility
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 03:14:21PM +0200, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
>
>
> On 04/20/2017 10:36 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
> > Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:14:37 +0100
> >
> >> I agree, except I don't think you're going far enough. Those "standard
> >> names" you mention... some of this stuff actually depends on __GLIBC__,
> >> and *that* isn't right either.
> >
> > Yep, that's something that needs correcting.
> >
> Should all libc implementations define __GLIBC__
Absolutely not.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists