devel@ntpsec.org said: > HAVE_SECCOMP can likely be replaced with HAVE_SECCOMP_H in the code.
That seems backwards. HAVE_SECCOMP_H says (to me) that you have the header. You may not have the library and/or maybe seccomp wasn't configured. seccomp is only referenced by ntpd/ntp_sandbox.c I was thinking of using only ENABLE_SECCOMP with a big comment saying that waf had checked to make sure whatever is needed is available. But which symbol we use is not a big deal. Humm... How would that test (and similar ones) work in a cross compile? Is anybody actually cross compiling? If so, what platform? Maybe we should setup a test case for a Raspberry Pi. -------- There is still the problem of should waf crash if you asked for seccomp and it won't work. Currently, it just prints a warning that is easy to miss in all the other printout. There is a similar problem at runtime. Should ntpd crash if it was built with seccomp but gets an error trying to turn it on. (I have a handy test case.) Currently, it logs a message and continues. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
