On Wednesday 2018-06-06 09:45, Duncan Roe wrote:
>
>ebtables would not build on my system and I submitted a patch to fix that which
>was accepted as commit 66a97018a31eed416c6a25d051ea172e4d65be1b.
Well then let's start there.
"" The cause of this failure is that the commit updated include/ebtables.h but
libebtc.c uses include/linux/netfilter_bridge/ebtables.h via
include/ebtables_u.h (gcc -E -C verifies this). ""
You missed that include/ebtables.h was *totally unused*.
To receive the new "revision" field,
include/linux/netfilter_bridge/ebtables.h should have been updated
instead. This is what the compilation has been using all along
up to and including 9fff3d5.
As to why his compiler did not respect -Iinclude remains a guess
for now. Perhaps it has to do with the position on the command line,
ld is sometimes sensitive to such as well.
Without more investigation, I find it premature to modify all <> to "",
especially since
- everything was fine with gcc
- in case we're swaying from gcc practices, then:
the standard says both <> and "" search implementation-definedly,
which does not really help at this point, so we might as well
go back to assuming gcc, in which case, <>.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
