On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 00:49:26 -0200,
Fr d ric L. W. Meunier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Keith Owens wrote:
>> Relying on /usr/include/{linux,asm} always pointing at the
>> current kernel source is broken as designed.
>
>From glibc 2.2.1 FAQ:
>
>2.17. I have /usr/include/net and /usr/include/scsi as symlinks
> into my Linux source tree. Is that wrong?
>
>{PB} This was necessary for libc5, but is not correct when
>using glibc. Including the kernel header files directly in user
>programs usually does not work (see question 3.5). glibc
>provides its own <net/*> and <scsi/*> header files to replace
>them, and you may have to remove any symlink that you have in
>place before you install glibc. However, /usr/include/asm and
>/usr/include/linux should remain as they were.
>
>Keith, are you saying that glibc is wrong?
Not me, Linus says that glibc is wrong.
"I've asked glibc maintainers to stop the symlink insanity for the
last few years now, but it doesn't seem to happen.
Basically, that symlink should not be a symlink. It's a symlink for
historical reasons, none of them very good any more (and haven't been
for a long time), and it's a disaster unless you want to be a C
library developer. Which not very many people want to be.
The fact is, that the header files should match the library you link
against, not the kernel you run on."
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu/2000-month-07/msg04096.html
for the rest of Linus's reasons.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
