Skip to content

chore: bump libc to 0.2.180#2724

Merged
SteveLauC merged 5 commits intonix-rust:masterfrom
3v1n0:bump-libc
Jan 22, 2026
Merged

chore: bump libc to 0.2.180#2724
SteveLauC merged 5 commits intonix-rust:masterfrom
3v1n0:bump-libc

Conversation

@3v1n0
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@3v1n0 3v1n0 commented Jan 12, 2026

It's required to expose missing definitions used by coreutils

What does this PR do

Checklist:

  • I have read CONTRIBUTING.md
  • I have written necessary tests and rustdoc comments
  • A change log has been added if this PR modifies nix's API

@3v1n0
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

3v1n0 commented Jan 13, 2026

I've replicated the armv7-unknown-linux-uclibceabihf issue myself and it's tracked in this rustc upstream issue: rust-lang/rust#151037 (comment)

Should we disable the build in CI for now?

3v1n0 added 4 commits January 21, 2026 22:24
It's required to expose missing definitions used by coreutils
As in OpenBSD this was removed upstream and from libc:
 - NetBSD/src@091e152
 - rust-lang/libc@35d5592
The type changed in libc, so we can just consistently used the same type
@3v1n0 3v1n0 force-pushed the bump-libc branch 3 times, most recently from d3e5634 to 4deef75 Compare January 21, 2026 23:20
libc does not expose them anymore for this libc implementation as they
were not defined
@3v1n0
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

3v1n0 commented Jan 21, 2026

Hey @SteveLauC, this should be ready now! :)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@SteveLauC SteveLauC left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@SteveLauC SteveLauC added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 22, 2026
Merged via the queue into nix-rust:master with commit 6789793 Jan 22, 2026
44 checks passed

[dependencies]
libc = { version = "=0.2.175", features = ["extra_traits"] }
libc = { version = "=0.2.180", features = ["extra_traits"] }
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@tisonkun tisonkun Feb 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why can't we use version = "0.2.180" but pin to an exact one?

If libc follows semver, this should be fine. But libc may remove variables even if the version doesn't increase a breaking one?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why can't we use version = "0.2.180" but pin to an exact one?

See #2737 (comment)

This will be unpinned by #2744

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants