I've removed the Makefile stuff, the _POSIX_SOURCE check is unneeded
since it errors out inside unistd.h anyway.

I hope its all fine, thanks!

Em qua., 27 de mai. de 2020 às 19:43, <ori@eigenstate.org> escreveu:
>
> > Today people asked me to resubmit the zlib patches that I had sent
> > months ago due to netsurf/nsfb. I actually had things working and
> > clean on my system since back then, but I was confused between a
> > decision of sending the build "half-broken" but with the final result
> > working, or triggering a flag up that I didn't know if it should or
> > not, after looking up, it seems the cleaner route is just to do the
> > latter.
> >
> > the newer zlib uses lseek/open/write, functions specified in
> > <unistd.h>, but it actually doesn't include the header when building
> > some of the .$O, what happened it was just that our linker would spot
> > the functions even after the compiler warning due to the lax
> > prototypeless functions in ANSI C std and build it fine. (the -B flag
> > on 2c would do it)
> >
> > the option I'm going here is just to make it include <unistd.h>, that
> > requires anything that uses ape/zlib to define _POSIX_SOURCE
>
> To prevent someone else from making the same error, we can do something
> like
>
> #ifndef _POSIX_SOURCE
> #error zlib requires _POSIX_SOURCE to be defined
> #endif
>
> in zlib.h
>
> > all tests I've done points out it is working fine, page works, the zlib
> > tests passes and netsurf png decoding work as always with it.
>
> > +++ b/sys/src/cmd/gs/zlib/Makefile.in Wed May 27 17:39:37 2020 -0300
> > @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
> > +++ b/sys/src/cmd/gs/zlib/configure   Wed May 27 17:39:37 2020 -0300
> > @@ -1,443 +1,921 @@
>
> We can probably get rid of these files -- they're not useful.
>
> Will look a bit deeper later, but other than that, the patch looks
> big and hard to review to me, since it's such a big hump in versions.
>
> It's also widely used upstream code, so.. *shrug*, it's probably ok.
>