(Gaah! I think I need to change the address that I've subscribed. At least that way my mailer would use the right one by default.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Bryan Kadzban wrote: >> >> So then, if glibc installs everything like this, why do we need any >> kernel headers at all? Is it just for glibc (and stuff like >> util-linux that's Linux specific)? Hmm. > > > Yes, LKML folks appear to agree that the kernel headers are just for > the C library (be it glibc, uclibc or whatever) and a very small > number of Linux specific packages. See > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0604.3/1404.html, the > last paragraph in particular. Ah, thanks. I did read that in the archives when the thread was linked to last time, but I didn't remember the comment about "only be used by system libraries _internally_ to build themselves...". So it sounds like we could stick the headers (in whatever form; either right from the kernel tree or run through a sanitizing script or extracted via kbuild) in /usr/src/libc-headers (or whatever), then point glibc to them, and then leave it alone. Don't install anything in /usr/include, but leave libc-headers in /usr/src in case any other package that's Linux-specific needs something out of there. I wonder if anyone would be willing to do some testing with that kind of a setup. The sticking point would be programs that include linux/<x>.h or asm/<x>.h, if there are any. And it sounds like there are glibc alternatives to all of those headers anyway, so it would be the program that's broken. (Unless it's Linux-specific.)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
