Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis: > Hi, > > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Dave Love <f...@gnu.org> skribis: >> >>> Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> writes: >>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:00:35PM +0100, Vincent Legoll wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Dave Love <f...@gnu.org> wrote: >>>>> > Why is linux-libre-headers a long way behind linux-libre (currently at >>>>> > version 4.4.47, compared with 4.13.10 for linux-libre)? >>>>> >>>>> I suspect this is due to massive rebuilding that would occur when >>>>> updating linux-libre-headers >> >> That and also because glibc targets (can target) older kernels, which is >> something we rely on. >> >>>> This is typically updated in the core-updates branch, but it hasn't been >>>> updated yet. Based on the LTS versions, we should upgrade it to the 4.9 >>>> branch. >>> >>> Thanks for the explanations. I checked that 4.9 would support the >>> Omnipath library, at least. >> >> The Omnipath library relies on Linux (not libc) headers, and a specific >> version thereof? >> >> I suppose we could also introduce a more recent version of >> ‘linux-libre-headers’ specifically for this purpose, with the >> understanding that the resulting binaries rely on a specific kernel >> version. > > Are you sure about this? My impression was that binaries compiled with > newer linux-libre-headers can be run on older kernels. If you were > correct, then the binaries we've been building throughout 2017 could be > reliably run only on linux-libre-4.4 or newer.
You’re right, but my guess was that if the Omnipath library requires specific kernel headers, then it may be using functionality (and syscalls) only implemented by newer kernels. I haven’t checked though. Ludo’.
