On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Matthew Vanecek wrote:
> Steve Dodd wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 01:04:47PM +0100, Adam Sampson wrote:
> >
> > > Also, what's the official stance on what headers should be in
> > > /usr/include/linux? The glibc 2.1.3 documentation says that
> > > /usr/include/linux and usr/include/asm should be symlinks into the source
> > > tree, but this hasn't been true for a long time now. Where should we get
> > > the "new" headers from?
> >
> > $ dpkg -S /usr/include/linux
> > libc6-dev: /usr/include/linux
> >
> > IOW, your libc headers package should include the kernel headers it was
> > built against, I think.
>
> Are we trying to have a strict demarcation between Linux kernel headers,
> and glibc headers? So that /usr/included/linux should come from glibc?
> My /usr/include/asm and /usr/include/linux have been links into the
> source tree for the last 5 years. Whenever someone complains about
> missing headers, the de facto answer is "Do you have these symlinks?".
> Look it up in the archives of almost any linux help list or newsgroup.
> The simple fact of the matter is that for most people, the current
> source tree contains the directories to which the links in /usr/include
> point. The leaders of Linux kernel development may think they know
> better, but according to common convention, and to glibc documentation,
> /usr/include/linux, /usr/include/asm, etc., point to the current source
> tree.
[major snippage]
What is considered the "current" source tree?
Sometimes I use one machine to compile kernels and software for other
machines, and I keep several different kernel versions around, under
/usr/src/linux-<kernel version>. I even occationally cross-compile for
Sparc linux.
Perhaps this needs to become a kernel/glibc RFC?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 25 2000 - 23:42:06 EDT