On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 8:37 PM Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:22:52PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > >... > > +Upstream-Status: Pending > > Not upstreamed OE-only musl patches create a technical debt. > > >... > > +there is no test to define HAVE_GRANTPT_PTY_ISATTY > > Is the definition in xterm_io.h not working? > > >... > > +_POSIX_SOURCE is app-defined not system > > This is true for musl, not for glibc. > > The handling of _POSIX_SOURCE and _POSIX_VERSION differs between musl > and glibc due to glibc supporting older POSIX versions, and glibc also > supporting developers of portable code to select some specific older > POSIX version. > No thats not right. _POSIX_SOURCE (like all FTMs) is defined by the application to request a feature/standards profile it's not libc telling you "this is posix" or anything like that. _POSIX_VERSION tells you that
> >... > > +-#if defined(_POSIX_SOURCE) || defined(SVR4) || defined(__convex__) || > > defined(__SCO__) || defined(__QNX__) > > ++#if defined(_POSIX_VERSION) || defined(SVR4) || defined(__convex__) || > > defined(__SCO__) || defined(__QNX__) > > + int pgrp = setsid(); /* variable may not be used... */ > > + #else > > + int pgrp = getpid(); > >... > > So this was caused by musl not supporting older versions of POSIX, > where _POSIX_SOURCE was part of the standard. > see above. > The proper fix would be an autoconf test for setsid(). > Thats a good idea. I have sent a v2 which adds a configure test got setsid() > cu > Adrian -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
