[iptables PATCH 2/2 RFC] Remove Libc5 support code

[iptables PATCH 2/2 RFC] Remove Libc5 support code

[Felix Janda]

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.
---
 include/libiptc/ipt_kernel_headers.h | 12 ------------
 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/libiptc/ipt_kernel_headers.h b/include/libiptc/ipt_kernel_headers.h
index 18861fe..a5963e9 100644
--- a/include/libiptc/ipt_kernel_headers.h
+++ b/include/libiptc/ipt_kernel_headers.h
@@ -5,7 +5,6 @@
 
 #include <limits.h>
 
-#if defined(__GLIBC__) && __GLIBC__ == 2
 #include <netinet/ip.h>
 #include <netinet/in.h>
 #include <netinet/ip_icmp.h>
@@ -13,15 +12,4 @@
 #include <netinet/udp.h>
 #include <net/if.h>
 #include <sys/types.h>
-#else /* libc5 */
-#include <sys/socket.h>
-#include <linux/ip.h>
-#include <linux/in.h>
-#include <linux/if.h>
-#include <linux/icmp.h>
-#include <linux/tcp.h>
-#include <linux/udp.h>
-#include <linux/types.h>
-#include <linux/in6.h>
-#endif
 #endif
-- 
2.3.6

Re: [iptables PATCH 2/2 RFC] Remove Libc5 support code

[Florian Westphal]

Felix Janda <felix.janda@posteo.de> 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?

Re: [iptables PATCH 2/2 RFC] Remove Libc5 support code

[Pablo Neira Ayuso]

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:48:09PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Felix Janda <felix.janda@posteo.de> 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.

Re: [iptables PATCH 2/2 RFC] Remove Libc5 support code

[Jozsef Kadlecsik]

On Mon, 4 May 2015, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:

> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:48:09PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Felix Janda <felix.janda@posteo.de> 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.

Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail  : kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, kadlecsik.jozsef@wigner.mta.hu
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
          H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary

Re: [iptables PATCH 2/2 RFC] Remove Libc5 support code

[Florian Westphal]

Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:48:09PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > > Felix Janda <felix.janda@posteo.de> 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.