[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110823000637.813c40f2.idunham@lavabit.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 00:06:37 -0700
From: Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
Subject: Re: Is "memory.h" wanted?
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:44:33 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 06:37:10PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> > I recently tried building OpenSSL, and it failed to build due to a
> > missing "memory.h".
<snip>
> > Which, IIRC, means a BSD-flavored/other legacy string.h
> > Is this header desired for compatability, or should code using it be considered
> > non-conformant and patched?
>
> Probably both, i.e. we should add it and OpenSSL should be patched. In
> the long term I'm thinking about adding #warning to all of the
> nonsensical legacy headers and wrong-location headers (missing sys/-
> prefix or incorrect sys/- prefix) to help track down and correct such
> errors in programs.
I had assumed the header wanted was a libc header; however, when I looked up memory.h,
the recommended header to use was a *private* kernel header (not one of the cleaned headers). There was talk about removing the include from OpenSSL (which certainly should happen, considering the hackishness of this).
IIRC, sys/ is part of the linux-libc headers
>
> > Also, have any SSL libraries (besides openssh internal) have been
> > verified to work with musl?
>
> I have bitlbee and irssi both linked with OpenSSL and haven't had any
> problems with them, but I haven't tried all the features that depend
> on SSL.
Since that means you built openssl, I'll try it again--once I've built a self-hosting system (bootstrap-linux, in this case)
--
Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
