Re: Fix for include/linux/fs.h in 2.4.0 kernels

From: Keith Owens (kaos@ocs.com.au)
Date: Sat Feb 03 2001 - 06:38:19 EST

  • Next message: linkern@cocoa.demon.co.uk: "2.2.x->2.4.x API Changes (superblock.notify_change()...)"

    On 03 Feb 2001 10:09:39 +0000,
    Graham Murray <graham@barnowl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    >Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> writes:
    >> This has all been thrashed out before. Read the threads
    >>
    >> linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu/2000-month-07/msg04096.html">http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu/2000-month-07/msg04096.html
    >> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg18256.html">http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg18256.html
    >
    >I don't think that these address my question. I was asking about when
    >building (upgrading) glibc from source. I believe that the glibc
    >headers are "derived" from the kernel against which it is built.

    That way everybody builds a different glibc. Does that strike you as a
    good idea? glibc should be shipped with standard include files.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 03 2001 - 06:39:29 EST