Re: fts-lgpl --test failure

[Eric Blake]

Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues <at> gmx.de> writes:

> 
> The fts-lgpl module fails to build:
> 
> I can make the test finish compilation by copying over
>   fcntl--.h fcntl-safer.h dirent--.h dirent-safer.h
> 
> but those files come from GPL'ed modules, and it doesn't seem like the
> right fix anyway.

Correct.  The module has been broken for some time now.  The correct fix is 
probably to add use of #if GNULIB_FCNTL_SAFER guards around anything that tries 
to use fcntl--.h (likewise for dirent-safer).  But it also means trying to 
figure out how to break remaining dependencies on non-lgpl modules.  In other 
words, it isn't trivial.

> I remember the fts-lgpl module already being broken last time I tested
> gnulib.  Does anyone use this module at all, and how come they don't see
> this issue?

I think you've nailed it - fts-lgpl isn't really being used anywhere.  We 
originally offered it as a way to port glibc's fts to platforms that lacked fts 
altogether, but glibc's fts is so much worse than gnulib's that it hasn't been 
worth trying to maintain.  Maybe we should just delete the module, and require 
GPL?  Or maybe someone can provide a better argument why library-safe directory 
recursion is still an important goal, even if it is slower because it can't 
rely on openat optimizations.

-- 
Eric Blake