Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Remove Libc5 support code

RFC PATCH Applied Felix Janda 4 participants 5 messages May 2, 2015 – May 8, 2015 netfilter

lore
Share & tools
lore

Felix Janda

author
#0 lore raw

RFC PATCH 2/2 Remove Libc5 support code

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(-)
include/libiptc/ipt_kernel_headers.h +0 -12
index 18861fe..a5963e9 100644
@@ -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
Signature · 1 line
2.3.6
maintainer
#1 lore raw
Quoted 7 lines · 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.

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?

maintainer
#2 lore raw
Quoted 9 lines · Florian Westphal
Quoted 7 lines · 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.

Quoted 4 lines

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.

#3 lore raw
Quoted 10 lines · Pablo Neira Ayuso
Quoted 9 lines · Florian Westphal
Quoted 7 lines · 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.

Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines

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 : [email protected], [email protected] 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
maintainer Applied
#4 lore raw
Quoted 10 lines · Jozsef Kadlecsik
Quoted 10 lines · Florian Westphal
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 7 lines · 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.

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines

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.