Re: Bug#33663: Debian GNU Linux 2.0 libc.h

[Martin Buchholz <martin@xemacs.org>]

>>>>> "MS" == Martin Schulze <joey@finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE> writes:

MS> reassign 33663 libc6-dev
MS> thanks

"Matt Armstrong" <mattarmst@hotmail.com> writes:

MA> That header is coming from the libxg-dev package, described as "graphics 
MA> libraries from plan 9."  That package isn't part of the default install, 
MA> but it is available as part of the stable release.  You could try a 
MA> "dpkg --purge libxg-dev" to get rid of it.

MA> The moron that came up with the idea was Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>.  
MA> You should file a Debian bug against the package -- having that 
MA> incompatible libc.h in /usr/include just seems broken.

MA> In any case, since the header can appear in stable release Debian 
MA> systems, a fix to zsh seems warranted.


MS> Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> This operating system appears to include a /usr/include/libc.h which
>> contains this bogus code:
>> 
>> #define	dup(a,b)			dup2(a,b)

MS> What is bogos here?  Defining a function as alias for another
MS> one is absolutely not bogus.

Excuse me???  I'm sorry, I'm not a flamer, but you are really really
asking for it.  Perhaps you've never tried to maintain the configure
script for a package.

There are standards for this stuff.  Look at:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/dup.html

       #include <unistd.h>

       int dup(int fildes);
       int dup2(int fildes, int fildes2);

>> It has this copyright notice:
>> 
>> /* Copyright (c) 1992 AT&T - All rights reserved. */
>> 
>> /* Plan 9 C library interface */
>> 
>> 
>> <flame on>
>> I don't know what moron came up with the idea of including ANOTHER
>> operating system's headers with Debian Linux.  When people talk about
>> code reuse, I don't think this is what they had in mind.
>> <flame off>

MS> Did you notice that several files have a copyright from another operating
MS> system?  It's called *BSD.  AT&T has invented unix some time ago and
MS> as long as their files are free and they're fine there is no reason
MS> for not including them.

This is not about legal issues, or about freedom. (or free beer, for
that matter)

Have you ever heard of `configure'?  Have you considered that some
software might try to examine its environment, and deduce some things
from that examination?  Maybe it will check if there is a libc.h
installed, and will

#include <libc.h>

if so?

MS> I'd consider this a sa non-bug.

Please please please please reconsider.

If you don't consider this a bug, I will recommend that all my friends 
uninstall Debian and install Red Hat or Suse instead.  I'm a long time 
Red Hat user, and although it has not been without problems, I never
once experienced anything this stupid.

Martin