<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" />
</head>
<body><span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:nico.nelson-91c8b80@yopmail.com" title="Nico Nelson <nico.nelson-91c8b80@yopmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Nico Nelson</span></a>
</span> changed
<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>
<br>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>What</th>
<th>Removed</th>
<th>Added</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Status</td>
<td>RESOLVED
</td>
<td>REOPENED
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Resolution</td>
<td>WONTFIX
</td>
<td>---
</td>
</tr></table>
<p>
<div>
<b><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#c17">Comment # 17</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 <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:nico.nelson-91c8b80@yopmail.com" title="Nico Nelson <nico.nelson-91c8b80@yopmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Nico Nelson</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=73729#c16">comment #16</a>)
<span class="quote">> (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...</span >
yes, that would have done it, if it wasn't for your comment below - and it
seems one cannot reply without reopening, and as can't leave that comment
as-is, i have to reopen...
<span class="quote">>
> > 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(). </span >
strerror() is not thread-unsafe when implemented properly (i.e. just returning
a pointer to a readonly string). it's not uclibc's fault if glibc doesn't do
so.
<span class="quote">> 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.</span >
well, the idiotic bit is for example if strerror() is implemented by copying
const strings to a static buffer instead of just returning the const string
itself. however i highly doubt that glibc does so.
so you're basically fixing an inexistant problem by using hacks - bravo!
<span class="quote">> > 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...</span >
the message of the announcement is basically "calm down, you can continue using
udev as if nothing changed". however it doesn't mention that it will become
glibc-only.
<span class="quote">>
> Anyway, closing again, I hope this time you won're reopen it.</span >
yeah, if you can refrain from making misleading comments when you close it
again.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>