deps: bump libc from 0.2.153 to 0.2.155

[huajingyun01]

Update libc to 0.2.155.

Release notes :https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/releases

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 42.53%. Comparing base (0cc0c62) to head (667da07).
Report is 44 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2188       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   30.91%   42.53%   +11.62%     
===========================================
  Files          53       53               
  Lines       20112    20324      +212     
  Branches     9755     9684       -71     
===========================================
+ Hits         6217     8645     +2428     
- Misses       7922     7974       +52     
+ Partials     5973     3705     -2268     

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

[sylvestre]

@huajingyun01 is there a something that you need in libc 0.2.155 ? thanks

[huajingyun01]

@huajingyun01 is there a something that you need in libc 0.2.155 ? thanks

Hi @sylvestre I had to update libc to 0.2.155 to support LoongArch64, because sccache compilation based on musl LoongArch64 failed.
rust-lang/libc#3606

Thanks.

[riquito]

Hi, I received the same PR for my project tuc riquito/tuc#151 and I just closed it because @huajingyun01 is forking multiple repositories and creating the same PRs over multiple repositories, for no clear reason

[sylvestre]

@riquito probably because Loongson has been paying developers to support the FLOSS ecosystem on this arch.
I have seen this happening in Debian too. It is legit stuff.

@huajingyun01 You might want to make it clear in your PR requests in general ;)

[huajingyun01]

@riquito probably because Loongson has been paying developers to support the FLOSS ecosystem on this arch. I have seen this happening in Debian too. It is legit stuff.

@huajingyun01 You might want to make it clear in your PR requests in general ;)

@sylvestre Thanks.

I really should take the time to provide a more detailed explanation for each PR as to why I need to make such a change.

Since there are too many repositories, I used the same comment, which didn't seem sincere, sorry I overlooked that.