On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 10:59:58AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:52:42AM -0700, David Schleef wrote: > > > > To me, the real bug is having N kernel header packages. I'm > > assuming that they all describe the same binary kernel interface, > > otherwise packages are forced depend on a particular type of > > kernel header. And if they all describe the same binary kernel > > interface, why do we need N of them? > > Some modules need to be built with the exact kernel headers from the > kernel-image you are running.
As I have mentioned in the past, correctly building kernel modules depends on not only the kernel headers, but also the complete .config, the kernel Makefiles (for determining compiler flags), and gcc version. These are not provided by the kernel-header packages, and thus the packages are useless for compiling all but the most trivial modules. However, there is still brokenness between the kernel-headers and glibc, since kernel-header-2.4.7-sparc is able to provide a build-dep for glibc, yet doesn't have asm headers for any arch other than sparc. (Again, I don't think this is glibc's problem.) dave... (I removed debian-alpha, since I haven't seen any alpha related posts.)
