Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0. The upgrade date is tentatively scheduled for 2 December 2018, pending final testing and feedback.
Bug 110655 - param.h should include <unistd.h>
param.h should include <unistd.h>
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: glibc-kernheaders (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Arjan van de Ven
Brian Brock
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2003-11-22 05:31 EST by Ling Li
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:10 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version: 2.4-8.41
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2004-04-27 17:18:05 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Ling Li 2003-11-22 05:31:21 EST
Description of problem:
/usr/include/asm/param.h (included in glibc-kernheaders-2.4-8.36)
defines HZ as sysconf(_SC_CLK_TCK) but doesn't include unistd.h, where
the _SC_CLK_TCK is defined. This at least breaks the compilation of
graphviz 1.10.

To Fix: apply this patch

@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 #define _ASMi386_PARAM_H

 #ifndef HZ
+#include <unistd.h>
 #define HZ sysconf(_SC_CLK_TCK)

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
Actual results:

Expected results:

Additional info:
Comment 1 Greg Schafer 2003-12-11 00:01:24 EST
I'd like to make the observation that this change (now appearing in
glibc-kernheaders-2.4-8.41) breaks the compilation of inetutils-1.4.2
from ftp.gnu.org

revoke.c:15: error: conflicting types for `revoke'
/usr/include/unistd.h:810: error: previous declaration of `revoke'
make[2]: *** [revoke.o] Error 1

This would suggest that the change may be bogus. Or it may just mean
the inetutils package is broken.
Comment 2 Arjan van de Ven 2003-12-11 02:33:56 EST
inetutils is broken I suspect; after all why include a private kernel
header if you can't deal with a posix namespace...
Comment 3 Greg Schafer 2003-12-11 07:01:09 EST
Yep, I've looked into it a bit deeper. Your suspicions are correct.
This header change just exposed a latent bug in inetutils methinks.
Every other package I've compiled so far has been fine. Sorry for
wasting your time.
Comment 4 Ling Li 2004-04-27 17:18:05 EDT
This issue has been fixed in glibc-kernheaders from at least release

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.