[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210611233910.GM13220@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 19:39:16 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Helmut Grohne <helmut@...divi.de>, musl@...ts.openwall.com,
989746@...s.debian.org
Subject: Re: 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 Unfortunately, the answer seems slightly out of date.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
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.
