On Sat, 2017-06-03 at 08:08 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > On 06/02/17 11:16, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 10:37 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > > > > Workaround is to avoid the backports package, but I wonder if it > > > would > > > be possible to fix this? How comes that the fix for #822396 > > > doesn't > > > work for Jessie? > > > > I think it depends on changes to the glibc headers. > > > > <rhetorical> > Shouldn't debian/control mention this dependency? > </rhetorical> > > Of course I understand that there is no backport of glibc. AFAICS > the conflict in Jessie has been introduced by the backports kernel, > ignoring old glibc. This is even more painful, since 4.9.x is > supposed to be a LTS kernel. > > IMU <linux/if.h> should either look at the glibc version number, > or avoid the double definitions using "#ifndef". > > What would you suggest? I would suggest not using linux-libc-dev from jessie-backports. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Experience is directly proportional to the value of equipment destroyed. - Carolyn Scheppner
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part