<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED --- - udev fails to build with uclibc" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73729#c13">Comment # 13</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED --- - udev fails to build with uclibc" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73729">bug 73729</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:lennart@poettering.net" title="Lennart Poettering <lennart@poettering.net>"> Lennart Poettering</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=73729#c12">comment #12</a>) > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=73729#c11">comment #11</a>) > > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=73729#c9">comment #9</a>) > > > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=73729#c7">comment #7</a>) > > > > We are certainly not rvereting the %m work. > > > > > > using the term "work" for that seems to a bit bold. > > > > > > > We make use of glibc and gcc > > > > extensions where they make sense. > > > > > > it certainly didn't make sense here. the existing code did exactly the same > > > thing, but in a manner guarantueed to work by both C and POSIX standards. > > > > udev and systemd are Linux specific. We program against the Linux platform, > > not against POSIX. > > the Linux platform comprises of more than just glibc, so you have to stick > to POSIX plus linux specific syscalls and structs. Well, that's your opinion not mine. However, I do maintain systemd, you don't. > relying on stuff such as glibc's %m feature could be considered as an > intentional act of sabotage against other libc implementations to create a > modern linux apartheid where you can use a desktop environment only if you > use redhat financed projects with all their dependencies. and that's what > just happening right now, as udev dependencies have crept into the X11 stack > (xf86-input-evdev), udev itself crept into systemd, which deliberately uses > glibc specifics to keep the competition out. Thanks, you just called me a white supremacist. > > Anyway, please do not reopen this bug. Please work on making uclibc more > > compatible with glibc, or send a convincing patch, but just reopening this > > bug will just piss us off, as we believe the onus here is on uclibc, not > > every indvidual program using libc. > > i'll reopen this bug until the issue is fixed, and turning uclibc into glibc > just because you say so is not going to happen. Are you stuck in puberty?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>