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: Mon, 4 May 2015 12:48:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20150504104809.GH22481@breakpoint.cc> References: <20150502195138.GB17994@euler> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Felix Janda Return-path: Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([80.244.247.6]:45625 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753252AbbEDKsL (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2015 06:48:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150502195138.GB17994@euler> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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?