On Mit, 2006-03-15 at 09:11 +1100, Greg Schafer wrote: > Jürg Billeter wrote: > > > Very short rationale is given on top of each file group. Detailed > > rationale for each header would unfortunately be too time consuming. > > Hmmm, that's not ideal. I'm assuming you've looked at each header and used > your judgement to determine whether it should be removed or not. That's > fine, because I trust your judgement. But it means the rationale for each > header removal is essentially "coz Jürg said so" :-) Ok, we can live > with that. Thanks for doing all this work.
I know that it's far from ideal but the only ideal way I see would be to extensively add __KERNEL__ ifdefs to the linux headers upstream so that the script could recognize automatically which headers are kernel-internal. Unfortunately this probably won't happen in the near future; I intend to submit as many __KERNEL__ ifdefs as possible upstream, though, so we might be able to shorten the list in the future; ok, that's probably too optimistic but hope dies last ;) As the amount of headers is pretty high, I haven't looked at the headers as carefully as I wanted to but I hope the result is usable and it may still improve in the future by rechecking the header files carefully in little pieces. Regards, Jürg -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
