Hi Helmut, sorry for replying a bit late.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 08:05:25PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > I've notices that musl lacks a #include <fts.h> that glibc provides. Of > course for every glibc header there is a user in Debian and it happens > that libselinux uses this. Obviously libselinux fails to build. Luckily, > we're not the first ones to notice this issue. All the other embedded > distros already know. Just why does musl lack it? The FAQ[1] has an > outdated answer. It's outdated, because glibc now provides fts64. > Anyway, the answer of other embedded distributions is a separate > musl-fts[2] that provides the missing functionality. > > I see basically two options now. One is that src:musl includes musl-fts > and that musl-dev also provides musl-fts. That would make things most > simple, because we don't get into any bootstrap dependency weirdness nor > any other issues. > > The other option is packaging musl-fts separately. New source package. > New binary package. fts.h users would likely have to depend on a new > libc-fts-dev virtual package provided by libc6-dev and musl-fts-dev. > > Do you have any preference here? Can you take care of musl-fts? Yes, my preference is including musl-fts in src:musl, as that is a simple solution and is also easy to undo once musl-fts gets merged upstream. A new source package for a .c and .h file is in my opinion a bit overkill. I will take care of it in the next upload, though I can't give you an exact timeline right now (probably at one of the coming weekends). Also thanks for poking upstream about this issue. Kind regards, Reiner
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
