This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: [PATCH glibc-ports] Make sys/timerfd.h usable without __USE_POSIX199309
- From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder at gmail dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-ports at sourceware dot org, Josh Triplett <josh at joshtriplett dot org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:46:12 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH glibc-ports] Make sys/timerfd.h usable without __USE_POSIX199309
- References: <20110914033839.4277.94420.reportbug@leaf> <20110914050207.GA2884@elie> <20110914175721.GA19003@elie> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1109142127440.6800@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I'll wait for the libc fix to go in before applying this to ports; in
> general I'd like to keep ports headers as similar to the libc versions as
> possible.
Makes sense. Thanks.
> (Properly there should be a bits/timerfd.h header for the
> architecture-specific constant values with there being only one copy of
> the rest of the header, but the libc maintainers rejected implementing
> epoll.h, eventfd.h, inotify.h, signalfd.h and timerfd.h that way.)
Would it be possible to make that change in -ports only? I understand
that a downside would be that the new generic epoll.h et al would mask
future changes in glibc's counterparts. Is there some automated way
of noticing when one of the files overridden by the ports overlay
changes, so someone can consider whether the overlay needs to be
changed to match?
Another half-baked idea: is it possible to use "patch" to modify some
files instead of overriding them (either at build time or at overlay
time)?
Curious,
Jonathan