Patch for musl support

[murray.calavera]

I'm not sure that's a good idea. If that is done then the call to nftw() will look like it has FTW_ACTIONRETVAL semantics when in reality it doesn't always depending on libc.

This is technically not a problem currently since the extra features of FTW_ACTIONRETVAL aren't used. But it's misleading, someone making changes in the future might not notice that it actually isn't FTW_ACTIONRETVAL even though something called FTW_ACTIONRETVAL is passed to nftw(). And they wouldn't notice that they've introduced a sneaky bug unless they were using something other than glibc.

Personally I would recommend to simply use the function as it is specified in POSIX.

On Thursday, 19 June 2025 at 10:51, Barak A. Pearlmutter <bap at debian.org> wrote:

> Happy to in principle, but might it not be better to put in util.cpp
> right after #include <ftw.h> or something like that:
>
>
> #ifndef FTW_STOP
> #define FTW_STOP 1
> #endif
> etc for:
> ...
> #define FTW_CONTINUE 0
> ...
> #define FTW_ACTIONRETVAL 16