[collectd] linux/un.h vs. sys/un.h

[Sebastian Harl]

Hi,

On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 06:10:21PM +0200, Florian Forster wrote:
> 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.

I was having problems when including 'sys/un.h' with some version of glibc. I
don't remember exactly what kind of problem that was but according to a
comment UNIX_PATH_MAX was not defined in 'sys/un.h'. As we are now defining
UNIX_PATH_MAX ourself anyway this might not be necessary any longer and I
guess we can simply include 'sys/un.h'.

Cheers,
Sebastian

-- 
Sebastian "tokkee" Harl
GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC
http://tokkee.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/20070509/20851aeb/attachment.pgp