Re: musl thoughts

["Andreas Müller" <schnitzeltony@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:10 PM Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 04:36:44PM +0100, Andrea Adami wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 11:00 PM Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:53 PM Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:22:15PM +0100, Andreas Müller wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:16 PM Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 03:18:01PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > > > > >...
> > > > > > > There are certain design aspects of musl which are actually turning
> > > > > > > out to be good
> > > > > > > e.g. there is no __MUSL__ define, so non-portable code can not be
> > > > > > > hidden which is a good thing,
> > > > > > >...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please take a closer look at some of the musl changes to NM that made
> > > > > > upgrading NM so hard for Andreas.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +#if defined(__GLIBC__)
> > > > > >  #include <net/ethernet.h>
> > > > > > +#else /* musl libc */
> > > > > > +#define ETH_ALEN       6               /* Octets in one ethernet addr   */
> > > > > > +#endif
> >...
> >
> > Hi,
>
> Hi Andrea,
>
> > I am jumping in a little late to take side with Khem :)
> >
> > What happens now is that more 'bad' sources (written to suit glibc and
> > thus not portable) are discovered by the wider base of developers and
> > autobuilders.
> >...
>
> but this does not apply to this example, which is a problem between
> musl itself and the kernel headers.
>
> Code can expect #include <foo.h> to work for any headers, and with any
> order of these headers. If it does not, the 'bad' sources are whatever
> sources provide the headers in question.
>
> musl does provide net/ethernet.h, but including it causes a compile
> error here.
Out of curiosity: you have some log?

Andreas