strange behaviour from 'mount -an'...

[Andre]

Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
> On Thursday 22 June 2006 7:13 pm, Andre wrote:
> > 
> > util-linux/nfsmount.o is different (missing header file):
> >
> > --- util-linux/nfsmount.c  2006-06-21 00:20:48.000000000 -0700
> > +++ util-linux/nfsmount.c  2006-06-22 16:14:45.000000000 -0700
> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> >  #include <string.h>
> >  #include <errno.h>
> >  #include <time.h>
> > +#include <sys/socket.h>
> 
> Are you actually seeing a problem here, or are you just assuming
> you need it?  

I didn't fabricate the compiler warning, if that's what you're asking
?!?. Quoted here again for reference:

  CC util-linux/nfsmount.o
/path/busybox/util-linux/nfsmount.c: In function `nfsmount':
/path/busybox/util-linux/nfsmount.c:787: warning: implicit
declaration of function `socket'
/path/busybox/util-linux/nfsmount.c:819: warning: implicit
declaration of function `connect'


> In my headers that's already included by <netinet/in.h>.

It's missing in all versions of uclibc prior to 2006/02/22

http://uclibc.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/trunk/uClibc/include/netinet/in.h?rev=14194&view=log


> If yours don't include that, we either need a platform.h entry
> for your platform or to add an explicit #include for that in
> libbb.h.

Are you sure ?? There seem to be a whole bunch of busybox sources
which already include <sys/socket.h> directly.

$ find . -name "*.c" | xargs grep 'sys/socket.h'
./networking/libiproute/iptunnel.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/libiproute/ipaddress.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/libiproute/iplink.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/libiproute/iproute.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/libiproute/libnetlink.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/clientpacket.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/arpping.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/script.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/packet.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/leases.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/dhcpc.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/dhcpd.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/signalpipe.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/serverpacket.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/files.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/dumpleases.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/clientsocket.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/common.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/udhcp/socket.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/fakeidentd.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/nameif.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/wget.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/ip.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/nslookup.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/tftp.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/dnsd.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/ether-wake.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/telnetd.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/nc.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/inetd.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/zcip.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/traceroute.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/ftpgetput.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/ping6.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/httpd.c:#include <sys/socket.h>    /* for connect and
socket*/
./networking/telnet.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/ipcalc.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./networking/ping.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./archival/tar.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./sysklogd/syslogd.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./libbb/create_icmp6_socket.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./libbb/create_icmp_socket.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./libbb/bb_xlisten.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./libbb/xconnect.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./libbb/xconnect.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./libbb/bb_xsocket.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./libbb/bb_xbind.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./e2fsprogs/uuid/gen_uuid.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./miscutils/devfsd.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./procps/fuser.c:#include <sys/socket.h>
./util-linux/rdate.c:#include <sys/socket.h>


Why should nfsmount.c be different ??

Andre
--


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com