From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 13016 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2021 23:39:32 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 11 Jun 2021 23:39:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 24430 invoked by uid 550); 11 Jun 2021 23:39:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 24412 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2021 23:39:29 -0000 Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 19:39:16 -0400 From: Rich Felker To: Helmut Grohne , musl@lists.openwall.com, 989746@bugs.debian.org Message-ID: <20210611233910.GM13220@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] What is the status of musl and fts.h? On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 08:35:08PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Dear musl developers, > > As I proceeded to building libselinux, I ran into the well-known issue > that musl does not include a fts.h header. This is documented in the > musl faq at: > https://wiki.musl-libc.org/faq.html#Q:-Why-is-%3Ccode%3Efts.h%3C/code%3E-not-included? > > Unfortunately, the answer seems slightly out of date. For one thing, > glibc does include a fts64 variant these days. For another, most > embedded distributions that do use musl seem to have set on an extra > implementation: > https://github.com/void-linux/musl-fts > > So it seems like everyone has agreed that there should be a fts > implementation and that it can be bolted onto musl. That gives rise to > the obvious question: Can musl-fts be merged into musl? > > Please Cc me in replies as I am not subscribed. Also please update the > FAQ entry. I haven't really looked at it since, so I don't have any immediate opinion. I think it's something we could revisit for evaluation. Rich