[musl] What is the status of musl and fts.h?

[musl] What is the status of musl and fts.h?

[Helmut Grohne]

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Unfortunately, the answer seems slightly out of date.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.

Helmut

Re: [musl] What is the status of musl and fts.h?

[Rich Felker]

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 Unfortunately, the answer seems slightly out of date.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