Bug#33663: Debian GNU Linux 2.0 libc.h
reassign 33663 libxg-dev
thanks
> "Matt Armstrong" <mattarmst@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> MA> That header is coming from the libxg-dev package, described as "graphics
> MA> libraries from plan 9." That package isn't part of the default install,
> MA> but it is available as part of the stable release. You could try a
> MA> "dpkg --purge libxg-dev" to get rid of it.
Oh. I'll reassign it again.
> MA> The moron that came up with the idea was Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>.
Could we please be kind? Thanks.
> MA> You should file a Debian bug against the package -- having that
> MA> incompatible libc.h in /usr/include just seems broken.
This bug is now assigned to that package. No need to file another one.
> MS> Martin Buchholz wrote:
> >> This operating system appears to include a /usr/include/libc.h which
> >> contains this bogus code:
> >>
> >> #define dup(a,b) dup2(a,b)
>
> MS> What is bogos here? Defining a function as alias for another
> MS> one is absolutely not bogus.
>
> Excuse me??? I'm sorry, I'm not a flamer, but you are really really
> asking for it. Perhaps you've never tried to maintain the configure
> script for a package.
I'm not asking for flames I'm asking for explanations. Please distinguish
between this.
> There are standards for this stuff. Look at:
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/dup.html
>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> int dup(int fildes);
> int dup2(int fildes, int fildes2);
Ok, this is a different situation. For sure it is a bug now.
> >> It has this copyright notice:
> >>
> >> /* Copyright (c) 1992 AT&T - All rights reserved. */
> >>
> >> /* Plan 9 C library interface */
> >>
> >>
> >> <flame on>
> >> I don't know what moron came up with the idea of including ANOTHER
> >> operating system's headers with Debian Linux. When people talk about
> >> code reuse, I don't think this is what they had in mind.
> >> <flame off>
>
> MS> Did you notice that several files have a copyright from another operating
> MS> system? It's called *BSD. AT&T has invented unix some time ago and
> MS> as long as their files are free and they're fine there is no reason
> MS> for not including them.
>
> This is not about legal issues, or about freedom. (or free beer, for
> that matter)
Aha.
> Have you ever heard of `configure'? Have you considered that some
> software might try to examine its environment, and deduce some things
> from that examination? Maybe it will check if there is a libc.h
> installed, and will
>
> #include <libc.h>
>
> if so?
Why should configure do this? Only if it knows that important stuff
is found in that file - apparently you don't consider this is the
case so why should configure include it?
> If you don't consider this a bug, I will recommend that all my friends
> uninstall Debian and install Red Hat or Suse instead. I'm a long time
Blah, no need to flame. You should always be able to discuss issues
with developers or users. If you can't you lack some important facility.
Regards,
Joey
--
GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them.
-- The GNU Manifesto
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Reply to: