On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 15:23 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: > > I'm suggesting that if you want to change things around as you did, you > > should make sure the users of those headers adapt to cope. You did fix > > the in-kernel users; you neglected to fix glibc -- and as far as I can > > tell you didn't even bother to _warn_ glibc folks. > > I didn't warn them because I didn't know better.
Fair enough. Now you do -- and thanks for fixing it. > I was under the impression that glibc still maintains their own set of > headers and will fix this automatically when they look at the diff. > That's what I do for my userspace applications that use kernel > headers. That's never been the case for glibc. As I said, various people have _attempted_ to do it, but it really isn't a workable approach and the results were wildly inconsistent. Having a single, centrally-exported set of headers is a massive improvement -- but yes, it does mean we have to take a little care with what we're exporting to userspace. > Ideally install_headers would do the trick but it often fails f.e. > when some application which uses bsd features thus including net/if.h > also wants to use new linux features and includes linux/if.h which > then conflicts. Applications in general shouldn't be doing that -- kernel headers are for system libraries and tools only. We should try to ensure that the _sensible_ use cases don't break, but we don't have to go overboard with keeping our namespace clean and anticipating _every_ strange thing which a userspace app might do with our headers -- we still get to say 'caveat emptor'; it's just that we can't be _quite_ as haphazard about it as we've been in the past. -- dwmw2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
