From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Westphal Subject: Re: [iptables PATCH 2/2 RFC] Remove Libc5 support code Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 16:04:50 +0200 Message-ID: <20150508140450.GK21713@breakpoint.cc> References: <20150502195138.GB17994@euler> <20150504104809.GH22481@breakpoint.cc> <20150504105543.GA3622@salvia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , Florian Westphal , Felix Janda , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Jozsef Kadlecsik Return-path: Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([80.244.247.6]:58066 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752734AbbEHOEz (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2015 10:04:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: > > On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:48:09PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > Felix Janda wrote: > > > > Current code makes the assumption that !defined(__GLIBC__) means libc5 > > > > which is very unlikely the case nowadays. > > > > > > > > Fixes compile error because of conflict between kernel and musl headers. > > > > --- > > > > If libc5 is considered still relevant, I could try to come up with an > > > > autoconf test. > > > > > > I'm all for removing libc5 support if this is whats preventing iptables > > > to be built with current non-glibc systems. > > > > > > Pablo, Patrick, Eric, Jozsef - whats your take on this? > > > > I would say, go take it. > > I second that. I've applied this patch, thanks everyone.