[collectd] linux/un.h vs. sys/un.h (was: rc9)

[Florian Forster]

Hi Sergiusz,

On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 04:45:36PM +0100, Sergiusz Pawlowicz wrote:
> In file included from email.c:57:
> /usr/include/linux/un.h:7:2: error: #warning "You should include <sys/un.h>. This time I will do it for you."

apparently your version of the GNU libc isn't happy about the email
plugin including `linux/un.h' directly.

Sebstian, was there a reason why you prefer `linux/un.h' over
`sys/un.h'? The unixsock plugin includes `sys/un.h' and this seems to
work just fine.

On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 04:52:43PM +0100, Sergiusz Pawlowicz wrote:
> sorry it looks it is not rcXX specyfic, but box specific, what i
> miessed this time? it is ubuntu dapper, i've installed
> build-essentials, flex, bison...

I suspect this is related to your version of GNU libc. It's only a
warning, but since `-Werror' is passed to gcc it's treated as an error.
You can comment out the following line in `src/config.h' to make it
compile for now; unless there was some weird reason to include
`linux/un.h' directly I'll change that to simply include `sys/un.h' in
the next version.
-- 8< --
 #define HAVE_LINUX_UN_H 1
-- >8 --

Regards,
-octo
-- 
Florian octo Forster
Hacker in training
GnuPG: 0x91523C3D
http://verplant.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.verplant.org/pipermail/collectd/attachments/20070509/ae33047c/attachment.pgp