On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 07:39:19 +0100 Ralph Sennhauser <ralph.sennhau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 19:07:01 +0100 > Szabolcs Nagy <n...@port70.net> wrote: > > > * Ralph Sennhauser <ralph.sennhau...@gmail.com> [2016-11-06 10:59:43 > > +0100]: > > > The conflict between Musls net/if.h and linux/if.h is an old well > > > known one and taken care of by a series of linux-headers patches > > > in OpenWrt. Since Linux 4.8-rc5 Firewall3 also indirectly pulls in > > > linux/in.h and linux/in6.h leading to new conflicts. > > > > can you check if > > http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/10/18/1 > > works for you? > > Hi > > That is an interesting find. It won't be able to magically fix all the > packages but could help a lot in fixing them in a cleaner manner. Will > take me a while to have a in depth look at this one and it's impact. > Thou as it's suggested by Rich Felker I guess investing some of my > time wont be wasted. > > Thanks > Ralph Hi, Tested musl commit 04983f227238 (make netinet/in.h suppress clashing definitions from kernel headers) and a patch by Felix Janda https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/11/210 . This fixes arptables and conntrack-tools for kernels 4.8 and later. For netifd, ebtables and ppp this fixes the netinet/in.h related issues without reordering of any headers. Ralph _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel