Fix build on alpha and x32 architectures

[gibmat]

Fix compile errors on alpha and x32 architectures, as seen on the Debian builders.

[cole-miller]

Can this part be fixed by casting fs_info.f_type to a sufficiently wide type instead? Would prefer to avoid the ifdefs if possible.

[gibmat]

From statfs(2):

The __fsword_t type used for various fields in the statfs structure definition is a glibc internal type, not intended for public use. This leaves the programmer in a bit of a conundrum when trying to copy or compare these fields to local variables in a program. Using unsigned int for such variables suffices on most systems.

Casting to an unsigned int or unsigned long should work; I copied the ifdefs since there was already one there for s390x.

[cole-miller]

Thanks, I hadn't noticed the existing ifdef -- we should remove that too! (No need to do it in this PR.) Casting to unsigned long would be my preferred approach here.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 50.00000% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.20%. Comparing base (2b3d6cf) to head (3822a6d).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/raft/uv_os.c	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #634      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.21%   81.20%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         192      192              
  Lines       27061    27062       +1     
  Branches     4943     4975      +32     
==========================================
- Hits        21978    21976       -2     
- Misses       3445     3488      +43     
+ Partials     1638     1598      -40     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[cole-miller]

We also need to you sign the CLA before we can merge this -- sorry for the inconvenience.

[gibmat]

We also need to you sign the CLA before we can merge this -- sorry for the inconvenience.

There's nothing mentioning that in the repo (for example, in README, LICENSE, or CONTRIBUTING). 😞 I'm not a fan of CLAs, especially for Debian packaging work which is contributed back under a DFSG-compatible license, rendering the CLA unnecessary.

[cole-miller]

There's nothing mentioning that in the repo (for example, in README, LICENSE, or CONTRIBUTING).

This is a very good point! I'll fix it.

I'm not a fan of CLAs, especially for Debian packaging work which is contributed back under a DFSG-compatible license, rendering the CLA unnecessary.

You have my genuine sympathy here, but we can't do anything about the CLA requirement. If you'd prefer not to sign it then with your blessing I can submit and merge an equivalent PR myself. In either case, I appreciate you contributing this fix!

[gibmat]

I'm not a fan of CLAs, especially for Debian packaging work which is contributed back under a DFSG-compatible license, rendering the CLA unnecessary.

You have my genuine sympathy here, but we can't do anything about the CLA requirement. If you'd prefer not to sign it then with your blessing I can submit and merge an equivalent PR myself. In either case, I appreciate you contributing this fix!

Sure, I'm fine with you making an equivalent PR and then closing this one. That's much preferred versus carrying an additional patch for Debian.

[cole-miller]

Closing as superseded by #640