Hi,
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:28:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Control: severity -1 important
> Control: severity 824442 important
>
> On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 23:20 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On 2017-04-11 03:35, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > Control: tag -1 moreinfo
> > >
> > > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:48:45 +0200 Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Unfortunately I have been pointed on the libc-alpha mailing list that
> > > > it doesn't work if another file which includes <linux/libc-compat.h>
> > > > (e.g. <linux/xattr.h>) is included before <net/if.h>. The problem is
> > > > that the __UAPI_DEF_IF_* constants are set to 1 in <linux/libc-compat.h>
> > > > even if <linux/if.h> is not included.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Does this affect any real programs, or is this just theoretical (and
> > > therefore should be downgraded)?
> >
> > It depends what do you mean by real program. I doubt it still affect
> > debian packages. The change has been introduced by kernel 4.5, and I
> > guess by now all the FTBFS have been fixed. At least for stretch, they
> > might be a few left in sid.
>
> While the fix in the kernel is clearly incomplete, I think it must have
> worked for most programs.
>
> > Now some of the fixes might not have reached upstream yet.
> >
> > If we consider that acceptable, we can lower the severity of the bugs on
> > both the kernel and the glibc side.
>
> Let's do that.
I see there were back in history two commits which had fixes for
4a91cb61bb99 ("uapi glibc compat: fix compile errors when glibc
net/if.h included before linux/if.h") .
Is there still something which needs to be done on either side (glibc,
kernel) or should we close this issue?
Regards,
Salvatore
