REVERT native: remove non required NATIVEINCLUDES

[cladmi]

Contribution description

This revert #8652 PR because in fact, values of posix AF_* symbols, and maybe others are not portable. It will fix #8922.

When writing #8652 PR, I was missing that what is defined in the posix standard is only symbols not values.

So even right now, if we look at the values of AF_INET6, they are not compatible:

• RIOT: 4
• Linux: 10
• MAC: 30

So using our posix headers in interaction with Linux is problematic.

Further steps

• Add a documentation about it
• Re-order includes to match RIOT include order

Also, I would like to check if it would make sense and would be possible to only use system posix headers in native.
My reason is that if a module using RIOT posix headers, communicates posix values with a module using NATIVEINCLUDES, then they would understand it differently.

Issues/PRs references

Reverts #8652
Fixes #8922
Linked to #8713

[kYc0o]

IIRC we don't revert commits (on my first PRs I did things like that, and @miri64 told me that), but rather make "normal" commits which revert what have you done.

[vincent-d]

I confirm it fixes #8922.

ACK from my side

[jnohlgard]

@kYc0o I think you must have misinterpreted the situation where you got that advice. There is no difference between a revert and a commit undoing the same change. On the other hand, if you need to revert only part of a commit, you will need to manually create a commit to perform that change.

[kYc0o]

@kYc0o I think you must have misinterpreted the situation where you got that advice. There is no difference between a revert and a commit undoing the same change. On the other hand, if you need to revert only part of a commit, you will need to manually create a commit to perform that change.

I certainly missed the point, you're right.

I can ACK this too, since I was the one who ACKed the original change.

[miri64]

Just wanted to confirm, that @kYc0o might have misunderstood me, because I don't remember saying something like that and would really be surprised about it ^^.

[kYc0o]

I think the situation was different and a revert would make the things worse at that time, so I was told to not do revert but better a new commit undoing the changes. I think it was even not all of the changes but just one. Anyways, that's back on the time where I was doing my first serious C code ^^'.

Sorry for the noise.

[kaspar030]

Maybe it was that we don't click the revert button of a PR after it has been merged, but create a new PR (which might contain revert comits)?

[kYc0o]

Maybe it was that we don't click the revert button of a PR after it has been merged, but create a new PR (which might contain revert comits)?

Bingo! I think that was the advice I was given. Thanks for the reminder @kaspar030 !