Quoting Carlos O'Donell ([email protected]): > On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Serge Hallyn <[email protected]> wrote: > > Quoting Carlos O'Donell ([email protected]): > >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Serge Hallyn <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Quoting Carlos O'Donell ([email protected]): > >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Serge Hallyn <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > Hi, would a simple patchl ike this to misc/sys/xattr.h be > >> >> > acceptable? This showed up in a failure to build (of at least > >> >> > qemu, and aiui lots of other pkgs) after merging a new libcap2 > >> >> > where sys/capability.h #included linux/xattr.h. It's being > >> >> > worked around by patching libcap2 to #include sys/xattr.h > >> >> > first, but presumably this will cause other breakages. > >> >> > >> >> Please follow the accepted practice for fixing coordination between > >> >> userspace and Linux kernel headers. > >> >> > >> >> Upstream glibc and the Linux kernel have already worked out a > >> >> mechanical solution to this problem, and we need people to work out > >> >> the patches and post them upstream. > >> >> > >> >> The solution is to coordinate the conflicting headers following this > >> >> template: > >> >> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Synchronizing_Headers > >> > > >> > Thanks for the information. I tested the two patches at > >> > http://people.canonical.com/~serge/xattr-kernel-libc-fix/ and they > >> > seem to do the right thing. I'll send them out if they look ok. > >> > >> Let me warn you that the glibc patch won't get accepted as-is. > >> > >> You are adding a #ifdef for a Linux-specific define in OS-agnostic code. > >> > >> Look at: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2013-08/msg00209.html > >> > >> See how we adjust a Linux-specific header to define an OS-agnostic > >> variable to use in the OS-agnostic code e.g. __USE_FOO. > > > > There isn't currently a bits/xattr.h file. Would it be preferred that > > I create one, or that I just set __USE_KERNEL_XATTR_DEFS in the > > linux kernel header? > > I don't know, you'll have to take a stab at an implementation and see > what upstream likes. > > I haven't reviewed this thoroughly so I can't comment yet.
Ah ok, thanks. I'll just start with the kernel patch then, with the define in there. thanks, -serge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140307055128.GA20460@sergelap
