Jim Gifford wrote: > I think we all have come to realization that LLH headers are not coming > out.
?? Speak for yourself! :-) And why the impatience anyway? It seems some folks around here think the l-l-h version needs to match the current kernel release version. This is simply not true! Yes, naturally there is some correlation between the two, and it certainly would give us all a warm and fuzzy feeling if we had a new release. But there is no real urgency..... at least not just yet :-) For the record, it seems Mariusz Mazur is not completely MIA. His blog was updated only a few days ago: http://mmazur.name/ And I fail to see how you can make a connection between fixincludes and sanitized kernel headers. The goals of each project are so very far apart. Maybe if you showed us some example working code (ie: a prototype) of Autogen producing a sanitized kernel header, we might be able to better understand your proposal. > Do we really want to pursue our own creating of sanitized headers? > (Possbily) Most definitely not! Quite frankly, IMHO nobody around here has ever demonstrated the required knowledge of kernel/userland interaction and required level of programming expertise to pull off this feat. I'm not saying it cannot be done. I just don't think it's a wise thing for "amateurs" to be undertaking (Yes, I consider myself an amateur :-) > Do we want to wait for LLH? (Could be a long time) Yes. In the meantime, maybe patch current version if deemed necessary (ie: we discover a missing feature we cannot live without). > Do we want use 2.4 headers with patches, like the distro's? (NO!, may > loose some 2.6 ABI functionality) Amazingly, this is what the distro with the most Linux professionals working for it does (ie: RH/Fedora). Ask yourself this question: Why? Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
