On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 14:37 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 09:37 -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:51:48AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:06 +0200, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> > > glibc now supplies these (compatible) structs instead of including the
> > > kernel's <asm/ptrace.h> header, so let's use them.
Annoyingly this will
> > > cause new elfutils to FTBFS on old glibc, and vice versa, but that seems
> > > unavoidable in the growth of a new port, and the workaround of checking
> > > for header defines and defining one to the other seems unpleasant as
> > > well. Therefore, bite the bullet, and let packaging systems alter their
> > > build requires accordingly.
> > That is indeed annoying, but using the glibc defined structs seems to be
> > the right thing to do. Do you know which glibc version introduced them?
> Hrm, looks like it's rawhide churn which has caused this... I guess
> it'll be in glibc 2.20, but isn't in a released version. I can sit on
> this and resend this patch when it is, if you'd like?
I think that would be better. I don't think we'll do the next elfutils
release before glibc 2.20 is released. But if we do, it would be
somewhat inconvenient if we relied on an unreleased glibc version.
Meanwhile it became a bit inconvenient because some other distros also
switched to a glibc 2.20-prerelease setup, but stable aarch64 distros
are still on older glibc. I think we just have to add the configure
check. Which I added to your patch. I tested it against old and new
glibc setups on aarch64. What do you think? Does that look OK?