Oops, forgot to put the patch inline for potential review. Here it is:
diff -urN uClibc-22487/extra/Configs/Config.in
uClibc-22487-applied+fixed/extra/Configs/Config.in
--- uClibc-22487/extra/Configs/Config.in2008-06-24 14:33:33.0
+0200
+++ uClibc-22487-applied+fixed/extra/Conf
Hi all,
This is an old issue which I brought up a couple of months ago; I was
going to submit a completed patch then but other things got in the way and
it never got done.
I've redone the patch against an svn from yesterday (22487) which I'm
submitting here again. If no one has any objectio
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 05:13:28PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
No, glibc hasn't moved to GPLv3 yet. It's not moving until the glibc SC
has got suitable wording from the FSF for an exception to allow GPLv2-only
programs to continue to be linked
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ricard Wanderlof wrote:
| On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
|> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 05:13:28PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
|>> No, glibc hasn't moved to GPLv3 yet. It's not moving until the glibc SC
|>> has got suitable wording from
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 05:13:28PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>
>> No, glibc hasn't moved to GPLv3 yet. It's not moving until the glibc SC
>> has got suitable wording from the FSF for an exception to allow GPLv2-only
>> programs to continue to
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 05:13:28PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>
>> No, glibc hasn't moved to GPLv3 yet. It's not moving until the glibc SC
>> has got suitable wording from the FSF for an exception to allow GPLv2-only
>> programs to continue to
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> How does glibc handle this?
>>
>> The latest (2.7) glibc (which is much newer than what uClibc is based on)
>> has a similar way of introducing additional checks in various parts of
>> the code. However, it relies on getifaddrs() to determine the
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 05:13:28PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> No, glibc hasn't moved to GPLv3 yet. It's not moving until the glibc SC
> has got suitable wording from the FSF for an exception to allow GPLv2-only
> programs to continue to be linked with LGPLv3 glibc, and the FSF is being
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> please note that we cannot takes code from glibc 2.7 due to licensing
> issues.
> glibc 2.7 moved to GPL v3 !!! be careful.
No, glibc hasn't moved to GPLv3 yet. It's not moving until the glibc SC
has got suitable wording from the FSF for an excepti
>> How does glibc handle this?
>
> The latest (2.7) glibc (which is much newer than what uClibc is based on)
> has a similar way of introducing additional checks in various parts of
> the code. However, it relies on getifaddrs() to determine the existance
> of an interface instead of checking th
Ricard Wanderlof wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>>> The problem turned out to be in getaddrinfo(). When hints.ai_flags has
>>> the AI_ADDRCONFIG bit set in a call to getaddrinfo, IPv4 and IPv6
>>> addresses should only be returned if the system as at least one address
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The problem turned out to be in getaddrinfo(). When hints.ai_flags has
>> the AI_ADDRCONFIG bit set in a call to getaddrinfo, IPv4 and IPv6
>> addresses should only be returned if the system as at least one address
>> of the appropriate type config
We experienced a problem with a product when IPv6 is compiled into the
product (and uClibc) but selectively disabled by a user. In this case,
IPv6 traffic was still be generated, which in this particular case was
not acceptable.
The problem turned out to be in getaddrinfo(). When hints.ai_fl
13 matches
Mail list logo
