<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED WONTFIX - udev fails to build with uclibc" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73729#c16">Comment # 16</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED WONTFIX - 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#c15">comment #15</a>) > well, then at least close it with WONTFIX. Whatever it takes... > that uclibc doesnt implement 100% of glibcs idiotic add-ons is definitely > not a bug. The locale_t bits are POSIX btw. And "%m" and "secure_getenv()" are certainly not idiotic. %m is a nice way to deal with the thread-unsafety of strerror(). And "secure_getenv()" solves serious security problems with handling environment variables. I mean, thigns are not "idiotic" just because uclibc doesn't implement them. Maybe the thread and security issues don't matter to you, but they certainly do matter to us. > but it's definitely a bug that you refuse to continue supporting uclibc for > the UDEV subset of systemd, even though in your merge announcement you > promised that for that part nothing will change and ppl can just continue to > use it as if it were not part of systemd. I don't see where we promised compatibility with non-glibc anywhere... Anyway, closing again, I hope this time you won're reopen it.</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>