This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 29 Dec 2015 17:45, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 29 Dec 2015 13:56, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On 18 Nov 2015 23:13, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > >> Andreas may still be running whole-distro rebuild tests, but enough > > >> results came back that I feel fairly confident saying that option B > > >> (remove the #include <sys/types.h> from stdlib.h) is a non-starter. > > >> There are too many (sloppily coded, yes) programs that include stdlib.h > > >> and expect it to expose all the POSIX foo_t types. That leaves us with > > >> option A (remove the #include <sys/sysmacros.h> from sys/types.h) and > > >> even that is going to break stuff. So we need a deprecation period. > > > > > > i'm just going to drop it in Gentoo and let people fix the build failures > > > > Well, if you're going to do that, option B might be better (or both!) > > but I don't see it as a viable approach for upstream... > > one at a time :). the impact of sysmacros.h is significantly lower than > the impact of sys/types.h. although people have been building Gentoo > against other C libs, so we are prob better protected against that. i've deployed this in Gentoo now, but only to limited testers. i'll open it up when glibc-2.22 goes stable in like ~30 days. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |