On 26/02/25 19:47, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 7:24 PM NoisyCoil<noisyc...@disroot.org> wrote:
It does indeed depend on the configuration, because at least some
abstractions are enabled via the configuration and different metadata
will be produced depending on whether they are or not (Miguel should
confirm this, but I'm pretty sure about it). The first example that
comes to my mind is the firmware abstractions, which are already in
stable. So it can't go in linux-kbuild, and if it can't go in
linux-headers either then it needs a new package.
I was referring to the `.so`, not the `.rmeta`s, i.e. I thought Ben
was referring to the last paragraph quoted.
The `.rmeta`s definitely depend on the kernel config (and always
will). The `.so` do not get the config passed right now, but we may
end up passing it if we need it. So I would just assume they do.
Ah, I assumed he was talking about both. Ben, do I understand correctly
that the .so files shouldn't go in linux-headers because you want to use
*linux-headers* for cross-compiling, meaning everything in linux-headers
should be usable by the build arch instead of target arch? If this is
the case, then I would also ask Miguel if the .rmeta files can be used
from another architecture for cross-compiling. I think the .rmeta files
can only be used with the same rustc that compiled the kernel crates?
Don't know exactly which checks are performed on the compiler, are they
only version checks?
Cheers,
Miguel
