inetutils issues

inetutils issues

[Matias A. Fonzo]

Hi there,

GNU inetutils (the replacement of the BSD net-utils) needs two
missing legacy headers in order to have the following commands working:
tftp, ftp, and probably others.

arpa/tftp.h
arpa/ftp.h

Also the compilation fails with the file "utmp_login.c", who is trying
to look for some aliases on include/utmp.h - more specifically, these
aliases present on the include/utmp.h from Glibc, says:

/* Compatibility names for the strings of the canonical file names.  */
#define UTMP_FILE       _PATH_UTMP
#define UTMP_FILENAME   _PATH_UTMP
#define WTMP_FILE       _PATH_WTMP
#define WTMP_FILENAME   _PATH_WTMP

I've added the lines in the utmp.h provided by Musl just after the line
39, and the compilation has been passed. I want to know if this is
correct and if this can be solved in the upstream side.

Thanks,
Matias.

Re: inetutils issues

[Rich Felker]

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:46:22PM -0300, Matias A. Fonzo wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> GNU inetutils (the replacement of the BSD net-utils) needs two
> missing legacy headers in order to have the following commands working:
> tftp, ftp, and probably others.
> 
> arpa/tftp.h
> arpa/ftp.h

I don't have any fundamental objection to adding these.

> Also the compilation fails with the file "utmp_login.c", who is trying
> to look for some aliases on include/utmp.h - more specifically, these
> aliases present on the include/utmp.h from Glibc, says:
> 
> /* Compatibility names for the strings of the canonical file names.  */
> #define UTMP_FILE       _PATH_UTMP
> #define UTMP_FILENAME   _PATH_UTMP
> #define WTMP_FILE       _PATH_WTMP
> #define WTMP_FILENAME   _PATH_WTMP
> 
> I've added the lines in the utmp.h provided by Musl just after the line
> 39, and the compilation has been passed. I want to know if this is
> correct and if this can be solved in the upstream side.

Yes and no. The idea of omitting it is to signal to applications that
utmp and wtmp are not used/supported, but I doubt any apps pay
attention to this, so it might be better to just define the macros to
point to standard or dummy pathnames.... Anyone else have input on
this?

Rich