From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1994
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: orc <orc@sibserver.ru>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: getopt* and iptables
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:58:57 +0800
Message-ID: <20120925005857.0563897b@sibserver.ru>
References: <20120924013117.3ba68fd0@sibserver.ru>
	<505F50E4.9010901@barfooze.de>
	<20120924221609.4d623d05@sibserver.ru>
	<20120924092323.b9b6ec7e.idunham@lavabit.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1348506011 16745 80.91.229.3 (24 Sep 2012 17:00:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:00:11 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-1995-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Sep 24 19:00:16 2012
Return-path: <musl-return-1995-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-1995-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1TGC11-0005tF-HX
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:00:15 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 32304 invoked by uid 550); 24 Sep 2012 17:00:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 32296 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2012 17:00:10 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20120924092323.b9b6ec7e.idunham@lavabit.com>
X-Mailer: claws-mail
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1994
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1994>

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:23:23 -0700
Isaac Dunham <idunham@lavabit.com> wrote:

> If upstream wants to support libc5, this patch would be rejected.
This patch is not for sending upstream, but (ugly) hack to make it
build successfully.
> Additionally, there's a better/simpler way to do it: -#if
> defined(__GLIBC__) && __GLIBC__ == 2 +#if __GNU_LIBRARY__ >= 6
> || !defined(__GNU_LIBRARY__) /*__GNU_LIBRARY__ is what libc[1-5] used
> */
Thanks.